Holding

A tenant who fails to comply with a Supreme Court order directing payment of rent during the pendency of an eviction proceeding is in default and is liable to be evicted forthwith.

Summary

Meera Devi, the owner of a house in Jhansi, filed an eviction suit against tenant Dinesh Chandra Joshi for non-payment of rent. The trial court ordered eviction and payment of compensation, but the High Court later set aside the suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court directed the tenant to pay rent of ₹4,000 per month, an order the tenant failed to comply with from March 2017 onward, as confirmed by an affidavit filed by the landlord. No response was filed by the tenant, establishing an undisputed default. The Court held that a tenant’s failure to obey a Supreme Court interim order on rent payment constitutes a default that justifies eviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the tenant was ordered to be evicted forthwith, with the landlord retaining the right to recover arrears.

Issues considered

Whether a tenant's failure to comply with a Supreme Court interim order directing payment of rent during the pendency of an eviction proceeding amounts to a default justifying eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Legislation cited

Subjects

EvictionRentDefault in payment of rentRent proceedingEviction of tenantNon-payment of rentArrears of rent

Judgment

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 677 : 2024 INSC 725

Meera Devi (D) Thr. Lr.
v.
Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) Thr. Lrs.
(Civil Appeal No. 5577 of 2014)
19 September 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
When the case falls in the category where the respondent-tenant
has failed to comply with the order passed by the Supreme Court
directing payment of rent.

Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Eviction of the respondent-tenant
was sought by the appellant-landlady on the ground of
non-payment of rent:
Held: A perusal of the paperbook shows that notice was issued
on 02.01.2014 in the Special Leave Petition – Vide order dated
02.05.2014, leave was granted and a perusal of the same order
shows that during the pendency of the appeal the respondent-tenant
was directed to pay rent at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month – Legal
representative of M, filed an affidavit dated 21.02.2024, in which it
has been stated that respondent-tenant has not paid the amount
fixed by this Court from March 2017 – In reply to the aforesaid
affidavit, no response was filed by the respondent-tenant – In any
rent proceeding, the Courts can always take the subsequent facts
into consideration, which may be relevant – Here is a case where
the respondent-tenant has failed to comply with the interim order
passed by this Court regarding payment of rent during the pendency
of the appeal before this Court, and hence, is in default – In any
proceeding of eviction of tenant on the ground of non-payment of
rent, he is not only bound to offer the arrears of rent on account
of non-payment of which eviction is sought for but also to pay the
future rent regularly, either at the amount agreed between the
parties or as fixed by the Court – Even on failure to pay the rent
during the pendency of the litigation also the tenant is bound to
be evicted – In view of the above, this Court is of the view that
* Author
678 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the case falls in that category where the respondent-tenant has
failed to comply with the order passed by this dated 02.05.2014,
directing payment of rent at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month, from
March 2017 onwards – Hence, the respondent-tenant, who is now
represented through his legal representatives/heirs, is directed to
be evicted forthwith. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10]

List of Acts
Transfer of Property Act, 1882; The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

List of Keywords
Eviction; Rent; Default in payment of rent; Rent proceeding; Eviction
of tenant; Non-payment of rent; Arrears of rent.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5577 of 2014
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2012 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 30694 of 2006

Appearances for Parties
Praveen Swarup, Ameet Siingh, Ms. Pareena Swarup, Ravi Kumar,
Ms. Archana Sharma, Govind Kumar Seth, Devesh Maurya,
Ms. Payal Swarup, Advs. for the Appellant.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The landlady is in appeal before this Court impugning the judgment
of the High Court1 passed in Writ Petition2 filed by the respondent-
tenant. The challenge in the Writ Petition was against the common
judgment dated 12.05.2006 passed by Additional District Judge,
Jhansi in SCC Revision No. 40 of 2003 and SCC Revision

1 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 Writ – A No. 30694 of 2006
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 679

Meera Devi (D) Thr. Lr. v.
Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) Thr. Lrs.

No. 47 of 2003, filed by the respondent-tenant and appellant-landlady,
respectively.
2. As is evident from a perusal of the orders passed in the case in
hand, eviction of the respondent-tenant was sought by the appellant-
landlady on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Eviction Suit3
was filed by the appellant-landlady claiming that she is the owner
of the House No. 129 situated at Laxmi Gate, Jhansi where the
respondent-tenant, now represented through legal representatives,
was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of ₹5.26. The allegation was
that the respondent-tenant had not paid the rent since 14.09.1991. The
appellant-landlady got the notice4 under Section 106 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 served on respondent-tenant on 15.11.1997
but no rent was paid till 15.12.1997. It was at this stage that the
suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the respondent-
tenant was filed.
2.1 The Trial Court decreed the suit directing the respondent-tenant
to handover vacant possession of the property in question to
the appellant-landlady within one month besides payment of
compensation at the rate of ₹50/- per month from the date of
filing of the suit.
2.2 Aggrieved, against the judgment passed by the Trial Court, both
the parties preferred separate revisions before the Additional
District Judge, Jhansi. The grievance of the appellant-landlady
was against the part of the Trial Court judgment holding the
deposit of rent made by the respondent-tenant under Section
30(2)5 of the Act as valid, whereas the respondent-tenant had
challenged the judgment of the Trial Court against the direction
of eviction of respondent-tenant from the property in question
along with compensation.
3. The revision filed by the respondent-tenant was partially allowed only
to the extent that the rate of damages as fixed by the Trial Court
was reduced from ₹50 to ₹5.26 per month. Whereas the revision
filed by the appellant-landlady was allowed holding that the deposit

3 SCC Suit No. 107 of 1997
4 Dated 11.11.1997
5 The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [U.P. Act No. 13
of 1972]
680 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of arrears of rent by the respondent-tenant under Section 30(2) of
the 1972 Act was not valid. The respondent-tenant challenged the
aforesaid common judgment passed by the Revisional Court before
the High Court by filing Writ Petition bearing Writ-A No. 30694 of
2006. The same was allowed by the High Court. As a consequence,
the suit filed by the appellant-landlady was dismissed.
4. Admittedly, Moti Lal was the owner of the property in question. Son
of Moti Lal, i.e., Ram Sevak had predeceased him and when Moti Lal
died intestate on 08.02.1982, his widow Gomti Bai and Meera Devi,
his daughter-in-law (widow of Ram Sevak), inherited the property
in question. One Pramod Kumar Pandey staked his claim in the
property in question through an unregistered Will6 allegedly made by
Late Moti Lal in his favour. Gomti Bai and Meera Devi filed a suit7
seeking declaration that the unregistered Will is fake, illegal and void,
and Pramod Kumar Pandey has no right on the basis of the said
Will in the property in question. The suit was decreed in favour of
Gomti Bai and Meera Devi whereby the Court pronounced that Late
Moti Lal died intestate on 08.02.1982 leaving behind Gomti Bai and
Meera Devi as his legal heirs, and the alleged unregistered Will is
forged, fabricated, illegal and void, and Pramod Kumar Pandey does
not have any right in the property in question. Consequently, Gomti
Bai and Meera Devi became owners of the property in question.
So, ownership of the appellant-landlady is not in dispute.
5. A perusal of the paperbook shows that notice was issued on
02.01.2014 in the Special Leave Petition. 8 Vide order dated
02.05.2014, leave was granted and a perusal of the same order
shows that during the pendency of the appeal the respondent-
tenant was directed to pay rent at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month.
The basis therefor was that during the pendency of the Writ Petition
before the High Court, an interim order9 was passed directing the
respondent-tenant to pay the rent at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month.
The said order was challenged before this Court and upheld vide
order dated 11.12.2006 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
19859 of 2006.

6 Dated 04.02.1982
7 Original Suit No. 278 of 1986
8 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24655 of 2012
9 Dated 18.10.2006
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 681

Meera Devi (D) Thr. Lr. v.
Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) Thr. Lrs.

6. The order dated 02.05.2014 is extracted below :
“Leave granted.
We notice that by order dated 18.10.2006, the Allahabad
High Court had directed the respondent to pay rent at the
rate of ₹4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) per month.
The said order was carried in appeal to this Court and this
Court vide order dated 11.12.2006 dismissed the special
leave petition.
We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay rent at the
rate of ₹4,000/- per month to the petitioner during the
pendency of this appeal.”
7. When the matter was taken up before this Court for final disposal,
Shobha Devi Tripathi, daughter and legal representative of Late
Meera Devi, filed an affidavit dated 21.02.2024. In paragraph 3
thereof, it has been specifically mentioned that though initially the
respondent-tenant paid the amount fixed by this Court but he has not
paid the same from March 2017 onwards. Even though the original
respondent-tenant has expired, his legal representatives who are
on record, are also neither paying the rent fixed by this Court nor
handing over the vacant possession of the property in question to
the appellant-landlady.
8. In reply to the aforesaid affidavit, no response was filed by the
respondent-tenant, thereby the averments of affidavit remained
undisputed that from March 2017 onwards, the respondent-tenant
has not paid the rent till date thereby failing to comply with the order
dated 02.05.2014. Hence, the statement of default in compliance of
order passed by this Court remains uncontroverted.
9. In any rent proceeding, the Courts can always take the subsequent
facts into consideration, which may be relevant. Here is a case
where the respondent-tenant has failed to comply with the interim
order passed by this Court regarding payment of rent during the
pendency of the appeal before this Court, and hence, is in default. In
any proceeding of eviction of tenant on the ground of non-payment
of rent, he is not only bound to offer the arrears of rent on account
of non-payment of which eviction is sought for but also to pay the
future rent regularly, either at the amount agreed between the parties
682 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

or as fixed by the Court. Even on failure to pay the rent during the
pendency of the litigation also the tenant is bound to be evicted.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the
case falls in that category where the respondent-tenant has failed
to comply with the order passed by this Court dated 02.05.2014,
directing payment of rent at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month, from
March 2017 onwards. Hence, the respondent-tenant, who is now
represented through his legal representatives/heirs, is directed to be
evicted forthwith. The present appeal is accordingly allowed setting
aside the judgment of the High Court. However, it is made clear
that the appellant-landlady shall have right to recover the arrears of
rent from the respondent-tenant as determined by this Court for the
period of default by initiating appropriate proceedings, if so advised.

Result of the Case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan