MAN SINGHversusSHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS

                        [2023] 3 S.C.R. 301                              301


                           MAN SINGH                                     A
                                  v.
              SHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS
                   (Civil Appeal No. 1874 of 2015)
                          APRIL 05, 2023                                 B
   [ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
       Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972: ss.20, 30 – Deposit of rent in court – When
– Held: Tenant can only deposit rent in the court, as long as the
                                                                         C
landlord has refused to accept the rent – Once the landlord expresses
his willingness to accept the rent, the tenant has no option but to
deposit the rent to the landlord – Section 30 gives an opportunity to
the tenant to deposit the admitted rent in Court, but this arrangement
lasts only till the landlord expresses his willingness to receive the
rent directly – On facts, rent of the premises enhanced to Rs.250/-      D
per month, however, further enhancement to Rs.300/- denied by
tenant – On refusal of the landlord to receive the rent, the tenant
constrained to deposit the monthly rent of Rs. 250/- per month in
the court – Thereafter, notice of demand for rent sent by landlord to
tenant but rent not deposited to landlord within the stipulated period
                                                                         E
– Landlord then filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction before
the trial court – Decree of eviction and recovery of rent passed
against the tenant holding that the rent was Rs.300/- pm and not Rs.
250/- pm – Finding of lower courts about enhanced rent set aside
by High Court as oral agreement between parties not proved,
however it upheld the decree of eviction – By serving notice the         F
landlord expressed his willingness to accept the rent, the tenant
had no option but to deposit the rent to the landlord – However, this
was not been done by the tenant – Thus, the order passed by the
High Court is upheld.
      Gokaran Singh v. Ist Additional District and Sessions              G
      Judge, Hardoi and Ors. 2000 SCC OnLine All 174 –
      referred to.
      Ajai Agarwal and Ors. v. Har Govind Prasad Singhal
      and Ors. (2005) 13 SCC 145 : [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 21
      – Distinguished.                                                   H
                                 301
302             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A                             Case Law Reference
      [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 21             distinguished             Para 13, 14
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1874 of
      2015.
B           From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2012 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 38925 of 2003.
           U. K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Garg, Dinesh Kumar Garg,
      Dhananjay Garg, Ishaan Tiwari, Advs. for the Appellant.
           Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Rahul Kumar
C     Choudhary, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
             1. This is a tenant’s appeal, arising out of rent and eviction
D     proceedings from a Small Causes Court. The landlord’s suit for eviction
      was allowed and the tenant’s J.S.C.C. Revision and Writ Petition
      respectively have been dismissed. Leave was granted by this Court on
      11.2.2015 and the impugned order was stayed, subject to certain
      conditions.
E            2. The premises in question is a shop situated in Kotla, Gangoh-
      Town, Nukur-Tehsil, District-Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter
      referred to ‘premises’) which was given on rent to the present appellant
      on 06.01.1982 on a monthly rent of Rs. 165/- per month. Later, the rent
      was increased to Rs. 195/- p.m. and then from 01.01.1990 onwards to
      Rs. 250/- p.m. This is the admitted position. We must, however, record
F     here that the landlord’s claim of the rent being further increased up to
      Rs.300/- per month was denied by the tenant though the Trial Court and
      the Revisional Court have given their findings on the enhanced rent, in
      favour of the landlord.
            3. The appellant’s case is that he was a tenant in the shop, on a
G     monthly rent of Rs.250/- per month. In June, 1993, the landlord refused
      to accept the rent which was then paid by the tenant through money
      order which was returned with an endorsement of refusal. Under these
      circumstances when the rent was being refused by the landlord, the
      tenant started depositing the rent in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior
H     Division) (hereafter referred to as ‘Court’). An amount of Rs.750/- which
      MAN SINGH v. SHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS                                303
               [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]

at the rate of Rs.250/- per month was the rent for May, June and July          A
which was thus deposited, and continued to be deposited in the Court, by
the tenant.
        4. A notice was given by the landlord on 05.04.1995, admittedly
received by the tenant/appellant on 10.04.1995, where the landlord
demanded rent from May, 1993 onwards. The notice did not result in the         B
deposit of the rent before the landlord and consequently the landlord
filed a J.S.C.C. Suit No.179 of 1995, in the Court of Judge, Small Causes,
Saharanpur for arrears of rent and eviction, on the grounds of arrears of
rent from 01.05.1993 onwards. In the plaint it was alleged by the landlord
that though earlier the monthly rent of the shop was Rs.250/- per month
but later through an oral settlement in the year 1993, it was agreed between   C
the parties that there shall be an increase of Rs.25/- per month every
year and therefore it became Rs.275/- per month from 01.05.1993
onwards and Rs.300/- per month from 01.05.1994 onwards etc., and
thus, the tenant-appellant was in default of rent. Since this rent has not
been paid the tenancy stands terminated on notice already served and           D
hence the landlord sought an order of eviction.
       5. In his reply the appellant denied that there was any oral
agreement between the parties for yearly enhancement of rent by Rs.25/
- per month. The actual and admittedrent is Rs.250/- per month, which
is being duly paid in court since May, 1993,and continuously being             E
deposited thereafter and the tenant has never been at any point of time
a defaulter for the payment of rent. At this juncture, it is necessary to
refer to the provision of law which is applicable in the present case. The
statute which governs the field is ‘The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred
to as “the Act No. 13 of 1972”).                                               F
      6. Under Section 20 Sub-section (2) a suit for eviction of a tenant
from a building can be instituted, inter alia, on the grounds given in sub-
section 2 (a) of Section 20 reads as follows:
      “(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after
      the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or             G
      more of the following grounds, namely:
      (a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four
      months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within
      one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of
      demand:”                                                                 H
304            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A            The ground of non-payment of rent by the tenant therefore has to
      be for not less than ‘four months’ and which has not been paid within
      one month of service of demand of the notice. Moreover, even when
      this rent is not paid and the landlord files his suit for eviction, the law
      provides yet another opportunity to the tenant to unburden this liability,
      which is by payments of the entire rent and arrears, before the first
B
      hearing of the suit. This is in sub-section (4) of Section 20 which reads
      as under:
            “20(4). In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in
            clause (a) of sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit
            the tenant unconditionally pays or [tenders to the landlord
C           or deposits in court] the entire amount of rent and damages
            for use and occupation of the building due from him (such
            damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same
            rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine
            per cent per annum and the landlord’s cost of the suit in
D           respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already
            deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of Section 30,
            the Court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on the
            ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability
            for eviction on the ground:
E               Provided that nothing in this sub-section, shall apply in
                relation to a tenant or any member of the whose family has
                built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has
                got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in
                the same city, municipality, notified area or town area.

F                      [Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section-
                (a)    the expression “first hearing” means the first fate
                       for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons
                       served on the defendant;
                (b)    the expression “cost of the suit” includes one-half
G                      of the amount of counsel’s fee taxable for a contested
                       suit.]”
             As we have already referred above the case of the appellant/
      tenant has been that on refusal of the landlord to receive the rent, he
      was constrained to deposit the same in the “Court”. The Act No. 13 of
H     1972 provides under Section 30, an avenue for the tenant to deposit rent
     MAN SINGH v. SHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS                              305
              [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]

in court, inter alia, in the event such rent is being refused by landlord   A
the.
      “30. Deposit of rent in Court in certain circumstances.-
      (1) If any person claiming to be a tenant of a building tenders
      any amount as rent in respect of the building to its alleged
      landlord and the alleged landlord refuses to accept the same          B
      then the former may deposit such amount in the prescribed
      manner and continue to deposit any rent which he alleges to
      be due for the any subsequent period in respect of such
      building until the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice
      in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept it.                C
      (2) Where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the
      person who is entitled to receive any rent in respect of any
      building, the tenant may likewise deposit the rent stating the
      circumstances under which such deposit is made and may,
      until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been            D
      settled by the decision of any competent Court or by settlement
      between the parties, continue to deposit the rent that may
      subsequently become due in respect of such building.
      (3) The deposit referred to in sub-section(1), or sub-section
      (2) shall be made in Court of the Munsif having jurisdiction.
                                                                            E
      (4) On any deposit being made under sub-section(1), the Court
      shall cause a notice of the deposit to be served on the alleged
      landlord, and the amount of deposit may be withdrawn by that
      person on application made by him to the Court in that behalf.
      (5) On a deposit being made under sub-section (2), the Court          F
      shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the person
      or persons concerned and hold the amount of the deposit for
      the benefit of the person who may be found entitled to it by
      any competent Court or by a settlement between the parties
      and the same shall be payable to such person.
                                                                            G
      (6) In respect of a deposit made as aforesaid, it shall be
      deemed that the person depositing it has paid it on the date
      of such deposit to the person in whose favour it is deposited
      in the case referred to in sub-section (1) or to the landlord in
      the case referred to in sub-section (2).”
                                                 (emphasis provided)        H
306             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A            7. The case of the landlord is that after the notice dated 05.04.1995
      was served on the tenant (on 10.05.1995), and he refused to pay the
      rent within the stipulated period of one month, his tenancy stood terminated
      and he had therefore filed a suit for eviction before the Judge, Small
      Causes Court, Saharanpur for his the eviction. The position of the tenant
      throughout has been that there was no occasion for him to deposit the
B
      rent on receiving the notice dated 10.05.1995, or on the first hearing
      under Section 20(4) of the Act, for the simple reason that he had never
      defaulted in payment of rent as the entire rent at the rate of Rs. 250/-
      per month was being deposited by him in the Court under Section 30 of
      the Act. The Judge, Small Cause Court gave a finding that the tenant
C     was in arrears of rent, holding that the rent was Rs.300/- per month and
      not Rs.250/- per month which admittedly has never been deposited
      anywhere, and consequently a decree of eviction and recovery of rent
      was passed against the tenant. The tenant then filed JSCC Revision
      before the District Judge, Saharanpur which was dismissed on 31.07.2003
      and so was his writ petition, later by the Allahabad High Court on
D
      17.02.2012.
             8. The Allahabad High Court though, has set aside the findings of
      the Trial Court and the Sessions Court, on the enhanced rent. The High
      Court held that there was no evidence before the trial Court of any ‘oral
      agreement’ set up by the landlord, which provided for a periodical increase
E     of rent from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs. 275/- per month, and then to
      Rs.300/- per month, and so on. Since the so-called oral agreement
      between the parties was not proved, it would be deemed that the correct
      rent between the parties was Rs. 250/- per month, which was being paid
      by the tenant in the Court under Section 30 of the Act.
F            9. The High Court then proceeded to decide the legal position
      post notice dated 05.04.1995. Section 30 of the Act provides that the
      deposit may be made in the Court on refusal of the rent by the landlord,
      but this position only lasts till the landlord expresses his willingness to
      receive the rent. This willingness to receive the rent has to be seen in his
G     notice dated 05.04.1995 received on 10.05.1995, by the tenant. The High
      Court dealt with this aspect and held that once the notice of demand
      was sent to the tenant by the landlord on 05.04.1995 (received by the
      appellant on 10.04.1995), demanding a rent at the enhanced rate, then
      the tenant had no option but to deposit the rent before the landlord, as
      against depositing it in the Court. He could though deposit the admitted
H
         MAN SINGH v. SHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS                           307
                  [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]

rent (i.e. Rs.250/-) and not the enhanced rent (Rs.300/-), but the deposit   A
had to be made to the landlord.
       10. This was not done and the defence of the tenant that he
continued to deposit the “admitted rent” in the Court will not come to his
rescue as once the landlord had expressed his willingness to accept the
rent, which was expressed in his notice of demand dated 05.04.1951           B
then such a rent was liable to be given to the landlord and not in the
Court. We are of the considered view that the reasoning given by the
learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court, which follows a Full Court
judgment of the High Court, correctly lays down the law. Section 30
gives an opportunity to the defendant to deposit the admitted rent in
Court, but this arrangement lasts only till the landlord expresses his       C
willingness to receive the rent directly.
       11. Let us again examine sub-section (1) of Section 30 under
which the tenant can deposit rent in the Court. The above provisions
have already been referred above, but we would like to emphasize the
last few lines of the provision which says:                                  D

         ‘…until the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in
         writing to the tenant his willingness to accept it’
       In other words, the tenant can only deposit rent in the Court, as
long as the landlord has refused to accept the rent. Once the landlord       E
expresses his willingness to accept the rent, which in the present case
he does by serving the notice dated 05.04.1995 (received on 10.04.1995),
the tenant has no option but to deposit the rent to the landlord. This has
not been done by the appellant.
        12. The Full Bench decision of which reference has been given        F
by the Allahabad High Court in its impugned judgement dated 17.02.2012
is Gokaran Singh v. I st Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Hardoi and Ors.1 There were three questions before the Full Bench,
all of them were relating to the Act No.13 of 1972. One of the questions
with which we are presently concerned was:
                                                                             G
         “In a case where the landlord had earlier been refusing to
         accept rent at the correct rate and had been claiming rent at
         higher rate and the tenant had as a consequence of landlords
         earlier refusal in the past, deposited the rent in Court under
1
    2000 SCC OnLine All 174                                                  H
308               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A              Section 30 and thereafter, landlord serves a formal notice of
               demand again at a higher rate, whether the tenant without
               tendering rent at the correct rate to the landlord has a right
               straight away to deposit the same under Section 30 (1).”
            After discussing the entire law on the subject, the conclusion
B     derived by the Full Bench to this question is as follows:
               37. (2) If the landlord has been refusing to accept the rent at
               the correct rate and has been claiming rent at higher rate,
               the tenant as a consequence of landlord’s earlier refusal in
               the past, deposited the rent in the Court under Section 30
C              and if thereafter landlord serves formal notice to of demand
               against the higher rate and expresses his willingness to accept
               the rent, the tenant after receipt of notice is under an obligation
               to tender the rent at least at the rate admitted to him to the
               landlord and has got no right to straight away deposit the
               same under Section 30(1) of the Act.”
D
              13. The learned counsel for the appellant Sh.U.K.Uniyal, would
      rely on a later decision of this Court which is Ajai Agarwal and Ors. v.
      Har Govind Prasad Singhal and Ors.2. We are afraid that the facts
      of the said case were entirely different. In the case cited above, the
      tenant was given the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act,
E     as he had deposited the “admitted rent” before the first date of hearing.
      The question before the Court was whether in order to get the benefit of
      sub-section (4) of Section 20 the tenant was liable to deposit the enhanced
      rate of rent as claimed by the landlord, or will he be relieved of the
      liability if he deposits the admitted rent. This court was of the opinion,
F     which was in fact the settled position of law, that in case a tenant deposits
      the admitted rent, under sub-section 4 of Section 20, he would get the
      benefit. Paragraph 19 of the above cited judgement clears this position.
               19. In the absence of any proper evidence regarding the
               purported agreement for periodical enhancement of the rents,
G              it becomes difficult to accept the story of such agreed
               enhancement as made out on behalf of the landlord or its
               application to the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act. Since
               there is no such evidence on record, except for the
               uncorroborated statement of the landlord, we have no other
      2
H         (2005) 13 SCC 145
      MAN SINGH v. SHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS                             309
               [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]

       option but to accept the story of the appellant tenants that         A
       the parties had agreed to the increase of the monthly rent up
       to a maximum of Rs 100 per month and that too after the
       renovation had been effected to the shop room and a shutter
       had been fixed therein. If such be the case, the appellants
       would also be entitled to the protection of Section 20(4), since
                                                                            B
       the rents admitted to be in arrears at the rate of Rs 100 per
       month had been duly deposited by the tenant within the time
       prescribed under such provision of the Act.
       14. The learned counsel of the appellant Shri Uniyal, sought to
draw a parallel with the said case and would argue that in the present
case as well the tenant has been depositing the admitted rent. However,     C
as we have already noticed the facts of the two cases are entirely
different. The above case therefore has no application to the present
case.
      15. We therefore find no merit in the appeal which is hereby
dismissed. All interim Orders shall stand vacated.                          D


Nidhi Jain                                              Appeal dismissed.
(Assisted by : Adiraj Bali and Tamana, LCRAs)


                                                                            E




                                                                            F




                                                                            G




                                                                            H