PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRSversusINDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS

           [2024] 9 S.C.R. 988 : 2024 INSC 941

            Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs
                           v.
           Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. LRs
                (Civil Appeal No. 10855 of 2024)
                       25 September 2024
      [J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the eviction suit
filed by the appellant-landlord and holding that the respondent-tenant
was entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

                            Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972 – ss.20(2)(a), 20(4), 30 – Protection
u/s.20, when not available – Suit filed by the landlord if, to
be decreed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent
and tenant be evicted:
Held: Yes – Under s.20(2)(a), in case the tenant is in arrears of
rent of four months, the suit for eviction after determination of his
tenancy may lie, but such rent may be deposited within one month
from the date of service of notice of default upon him – In case,
the due rent along with damages and occupation charges is not
paid as required u/s.20(2)(a) r/w ss.20(4) and 30, no protection
would be available as stipulated u/s.20 – Tenancy was for a period
of five years whereafter, it was extendable by consent of landlord
with rent enhancement – No agreed lease agreement was entered
after 30.06.1990, but as per the UP Rent Act, the tenancy would
become statutory and subject to payment of the enhanced rent,
the suit can be maintained – But, in case of consecutive default of
monthly payment of rent and continuous non-payment as specified
under the UP Rent Act, it may be a ground to grant decree of
eviction – Tenant was in default in regular payment of monthly rent,
tax and interest due during pendency of the suit, revision before
the High Court and also in appeal before this Court – On facts,
the burden of payment or deposit of rent by tenant not discharged
to shift onus on landlord – Deposit in one-go after the order of
this Court would not absolve the tenant from consequence of
non-payment or delayed payment of rent – Findings recorded by
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                                 989

Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs v. Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. LRs


     Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are perverse – Orders
     passed by Trial Court and the High Court set aside – Suit filed by
     the landlord decreed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of
     rent, tenant to be evicted from the suit subject property. [Paras
     13, 15, 22, 25-27]

     Rent eviction matters – Revisional jurisdiction of High
     Court – Trial Court dismissed the eviction suit filed by the
     landlord – Revision thereagainst, dismissed by High Court
     holding that re-appraisal of evidence is not permissible in
     revisional jurisdiction:
     Held: Once a revision petition is entertained by the High Court, it
     acquires the jurisdiction to call for and examine the records of the
     authority subordinate to it – Any illegality, irregularity or impropriety
     coming to its notice is capable of being corrected by it by passing
     such appropriate order or direction as the law requires and justice
     demands – Therefore, the High Court was required to look into
     the material placed and justifiability of the findings relying those
     documents – In absence of its satisfaction, the High Court ought
     to have interfered and such revision cannot be thrown out on the
     ground of limited scope of jurisdiction. [Para 24]

                                Case Law Cited
     Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat
     [1970] 1 SCR 322 : (1969) 2 SCC 74; Babulal Nagar and Others
     v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. and Others [1984] 3 SCR 772 : (1984)
     Supp SCC 128; Nalakanth Sainuddin v. Koorkikadan Sulaiman
     [2002] Supp. 1 SCR 1 : (2002) 6 SCC 1 – relied on.
     Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and Ors. [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 1 :
     (1985) 2 SCC 683 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
     Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
     Eviction) Act, 1972.

                               List of Keywords
     Eviction suit; Non-payment of arrears of rent; Delayed payment of
     rent; Decree of eviction; Determination of tenancy; Date of service of
     notice of default; Due rent; Damages, Occupation charges; Tenancy
     for five years extendable by consent of landlord; Lease agreement;
     Enhanced rent; Consecutive default of monthly payment of rent;
990                                                            [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Burden of payment/deposit of rentnot discharged; Continuous
       non-payment; Statutory tenancy; Default in regular payment of
       monthly rent, Tax, interest due; Pendency of suit, revision and
       appeal; Deposit in one-go; Findings perverse; Rent eviction matters;
       Revisional jurisdiction of High Court; Re-appraisal of evidence.

                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10855 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2013 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Allahabad in CR No. 175 of 2001

                           Appearances for Parties
       Amitabh Chaturvedi, Rahul Shukla, Mrs. Bachita Baruah Shukla,
       Barbeshwar Bhalotia, Kumar Dushyant Singh, Advs. for the
       Appellants.
       Ms. Aarohi Bhalla, Anupam Mishra, Harikumar V., Advs. for the
       Respondents.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                     Order

1.     Leave granted.
2.     Challenging the judgment dated 22.01.2001 passed in Suit No. 1 of
       1992 by Small Causes Court dismissing the suit for eviction filed by
       landlord due to ‘non-payment of rent’, ‘subletting’, and ‘expiry of rent
       agreement’, as affirmed by the High Court vide impugned judgment
       dated 31.01.2013, the present appeal has been filed.
3.     The facts leading are that appellant (now deceased) was the owner
       of Shop No. 4 (Western Direction) situated in Mohalla Begupur,
       Muglani, Ram Prasad Bhalotia Market, District Gorakhpur city
       with the prescribed boundaries shown in the suit. The defendant/
       respondent (now deceased) was inducted as a tenant on a monthly
       rent of ₹ 330/-. The tenancy was for a fixed period of five years,
       which started from 01.07.1985 and ended on 30.06.1990. As per
       the terms of tenancy, on expiry of period of five years, the tenant
       may continue with increase of rent @ 15 % per month provided the
       same is agreeable to the owner.
4.     It was averred in the suit that neither plaintiff – landlord intimated
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                          991

Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs v. Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. LRs


     about construction of shop to Municipality nor Municipality recorded
     the same on its own and did the tax assessment of the shop in
     1972. On objections being raised by plaintiff/landlord, the same was
     admitted by the Municipality. The plea of sub-letting has also been
     averred, but it is not being dealt here as the said ground has not
     been pressed during hearing. As contended, after expiry of the period
     of tenancy, it was not renewed by consent and the respondent –
     tenant became unauthorized occupant of the shop. However, as per
     agreement, for the period of overstay, he ought to pay ₹ 1,000/- per
     month. Therefore, due to non-payment of rent, notice was issued for
     termination of tenancy, which was not responded to by defendant/
     respondent – tenant.
5.   On filing suit, defendant entered appearance and filed the written
     statement, inter-alia, stating that plaintiff did not have right to bring
     the suit, and claimed protection under Section 20 of The Uttar
     Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
     Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “UP Rent Act”). It was averred
     that, prior to the fresh tenancy agreement dated 13.03.1986, which
     was from 01.07.1985 for five years, defendant was a tenant since
     1977, therefore, being in continuous tenancy, the same would not
     extinguish and he would be entitled to protection available under
     Section 20 of the UP Rent Act, if rent is deposited in the Court under
     Section 30 of the said Act.
6.   Learned Trial Court, on Issue No. 4 noted that from the agreement
     it can be determined that the tenancy was not for a definite period
     of five years. On Issue No. 5 it was held that the benefit under
     Section 20(4) of the UP Rent Act is available to the tenant. Further,
     Issue No. 6 which relates to default in payment of the rent, it was
     concluded against the landlord and in favour of tenant and hence,
     suit was dismissed.
7.   The revision filed against the judgment of the Trial Court was
     dismissed by the High Court, observing that in revisional jurisdiction,
     re-appraisal of evidence is not permissible, and consequently findings
     of the Trial Court were affirmed.
8.   Being dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred, inter-alia,
     submitting that tenancy was for 5 years, and ended on 30.06.1990.
     The tenancy was monthly in nature and the rent was payable on
     month-to-month basis. As per Clause 14, such tenancy may be
     extendable, by consent of the landlord with monthly increase of
992                                                            [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       rent @ 15%, after entering into registered agreement. In absence
       thereof, Clause 6 of the agreement would attract and the defendant
       be treated an unauthorized occupant and liable to pay ₹ 1000/- per
       month as penalty for overstay.
9.     It is contended that the rent and the penalty, as agreed in the lease
       agreement, has not been deposited even on receipt of the notice
       by the Court within the time and the respondent – tenant was in
       default of payment of rent even during pendency of proceedings.
       This Court vide order dated 18.09.2018 directed the respondent-
       tenant(s) to file affidavit giving details of the rent deposited within a
       week. Thereafter, four weeks’ time was granted to deposit arrears of
       rent and taxes etc. Later, one more opportunity of four weeks was
       granted to comply the said orders. In compliance, the respondent –
       tenant filed an affidavit and explained that the rent as agreed above
       after expiry of the period of tenancy has been deposited, including
       House Tax as detailed therein.
10. The contention of appellant – landlord is that the findings of Trial
    Court on Issue No. 6 is vague and referring to the documents, he
    submitted that respondent – tenant is in default in depositing month to
    month rent as per UP Rent Act. Therefore, the findings are completely
    perverse and contrary to the record placed before this Court.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the tenant – respondent(s) has taken
    us through the findings of the Trial Court on Issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and
    submitted that in absence of any material controverting those findings,
    re-appraisal in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution
    of India ought not to be done. It is contended that the affidavit filed is
    only regarding arrears of rent and taxes during pendency, therefore,
    it cannot form basis to set aside the findings of the Trial Court which
    dismissed the suit seeking eviction. Learned counsel further made an
    attempt while referring various documents filed subsequently stating
    that, the rent which was due has already been deposited.
12. During hearing, it was not disputed by learned counsel for the parties
    that the provisions of the UP Rent Act are applicable to the suit filed
    by the appellant – landlord for eviction. Therefore, we are inclined
    to appreciate the findings recorded on this issue by the Trial Court
    as affirmed by the High Court.
13. In the UP Rent Act, ‘tenant’ has been defined in Section 3(a) as “a
    person by whom its rent is payable, till his death.” Further Section
    7 deals with ‘Liability to pay taxes’ which specifies ‘subject to any
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                           993

Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs v. Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. LRs


     contract in writing to the contrary, but notwithstanding the provisions
     of Section 149 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, the
     tenant shall be liable to pay to the landlord the taxes i.e. water tax,
     house tax, in addition to the part of the rent.’ Section 20 of the UP
     Rent Act, in Chapter-IV, stipulates about bar of suit for eviction of
     tenant except on specified grounds and provides protection to the
     tenant as specified. Section 20(2)(a) of the UP Rent Act makes it
     clear that a suit for eviction of a tenant after determination of his
     tenancy may be instituted on the ground, where the tenant is in
     arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay
     to the landlord within one month from the date of service of notice
     of default upon him. Section 20(4) makes it clear that in a suit for
     eviction for non-payment of rent, at the first hearing of the suit, if the
     tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in
     Court the entire amount of rent including the damages for use and
     occupation of the building due from him together with interest @
     9% per annum along with landlord’s cost of the suit, after deducting
     any amount already deposited by him under Section 30(1), on such
     deposit, the Court may pass an order relieving the tenant against
     his liability for eviction. Meaning thereby, it is clear that in case the
     tenant is in arrears of four months, the suit may lie, but such rent
     may be deposited within one month from the date of service on him.
     In case, the due rent along with damages and occupation charges
     is not paid as required under Section 20(2)(a) of the UP Rent Act
     read with Sections 20(4) and 30 of the Act, no protection would be
     available as stipulated under Section 20 of the said Act.
14. In case the landlord refuses to accept the rent, which is required to
    be paid by the tenant, then such amount can be deposited in the
    manner prescribed under Section 30 of UP Rent Act and the tenant
    can continue to deposit rent due even for any subsequent period until
    the landlord signifies by notice to accept the same by his willingness.
    Therefore, it can safely be said that in addition to cause of action
    to file a suit for arrears of due rent of not less than four months, if
    the rent is not deposited regularly, including the damages and the
    occupational charges along with the interest @ 9%, the suit seeking
    eviction can be maintained and decreed.
15. As already noted, the ground of sub-letting has not been pressed
    and during hearing, learned counsel for the appellant(s) – landlord
    has pressed this appeal only for non-payment of rent, therefore,
    we are appreciating the said issue only. In this regard, if we peruse
994                                                          [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       the findings of the Trial Court on Issue Nos. 5 and 6, then it clearly
       indicates that such findings are relying upon Exhibits K1 to K6 –
       receipt of the rents and Exhibits K7 to K12 – receipts of sending the
       Money Orders and Exhibits K13 and K14, which relate to deposit of
       the money in the Court of Munsiff, Gorakhpur. Those documents,
       i.e., Exhibits K1 to K6 have not been produced, but placed before
       us. On perusal, it is clear that those are receipts of rent for the
       years 1984, 1988, 1989 and K6 is receipt of 31.03.1990 depositing
       consolidated rent of ₹3460/-, which is from April 1989 to March, 1990.
       Thus, except receipt K6, no other receipt relates to the demand of
       rent by notice in the suit. From the document Exhibits K7 to K12,
       it is not clear that these Money Orders were of which period of
       rent. Similar is the position with document Exhibits K13 and K14.
       Therefore, those documents are not sufficient to discharge burden of
       payment or deposit of rent by respondent – tenant and to shift onus
       on appellant – landlord. Similarly on filing the suit on 06.02.1992,
       whether the rent was regularly paid by the respondent – tenant as
       contemplated under Section 20(4) including Section 30(1) of the UP
       Rent Act has not been considered.
16. By the proceeding dated 18.09.2018 of the case, this Court directed
    the respondent – tenant to file an affidavit giving details of the payment
    of the rent. Later, directions were issued to deposit the arrears of
    rent and taxes after filing of eviction petition. Due to non-compliance,
    in a later proceeding, four weeks’ further time to comply with the
    previous orders was allowed. In response, an affidavit was filed by
    respondent – tenant, wherein paragraph 3, details of deposit have
    been disclosed. Those details are relevant and reproduced as thus: -
            “3. That I have deposited the rent for the shop room in
            the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gorakhpur
            through the Sub-Treasury in Misc. Rent Case No. 71 of
            2001 as shown below :-

          Date of          Period for which Rent was             Amount
          Deposit                   Remitted                    Deposited
         28.09.2012      October 2011 to September 2012          Rs. 4554
         21.03.2013      October 2012 to September 2013          Rs. 4554
         19.10.2013        October 2013 to March 2014            Rs. 2277
         19.04.2014       April 2014 to September 2014           Rs. 2277
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                      995

Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs v. Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. LRs



        02.02.2015    October 2014 to September 2015         Rs. 4554
        02.11.2015    October 2015 to September 2016         Rs. 4554
        01.12.2016    October 2016 to September 2017         Rs. 4554
        07.11.2017    October 2017 to September 2018         Rs. 4554”

17. The respondent – tenant also filed an application (I.A. No. 61800
    of 2020) seeking permission to bring additional documents on
    record. The documents annexed as R1 and R3 are the receipts
    of deposit of the rent from January 2019 to December 2019 and
    January 2020 to December 2020 in the case of Yashoda Devi and
    not related to this case. Document annexed as R2 relates to this
    case, whereby the respondent – tenant deposited the rent from
    October 2019 to March 2020 and Annexure R4 is the House Tax
    Receipt of ₹50,049/- deposited in compliance of the order of this
    Court.
18. In this respect, appellant – landlord has also filed a document
    along with I.A. No. 11110 of 2020 indicating deficit rent of ₹28462.6
    and Tax of ₹1912.68 @ 24% for a period of 75 months viz. from
    July 1995 to December 1995, January 1996 to December 1996,
    January 1997 to March 1997, April 2002 to March 2003, April
    2003 to March 2004, October 2006 to September 2007, October
    2008 to March 2009 and October 2009 to September 2010. In
    the said document, it is also specified that from October, 2001 to
    September, 2019, i.e., a total 216 months, the Tax has not been
    deposited, which comes to ₹19,673.28 and there is a total deficit
    of ₹50048.56.
19. On perusal of the affidavit and the documents referred hereinabove, it
    can safely be concluded that the rent from October 2011 to September
    2012 was paid on 28.09.2012, hence, month to month rent was
    not paid during this period, and the default of respondent – tenant
    was there. Similarly, from October 2012 to September 2013, the
    rent was deposited on 21.03.2013, thus, default in payment of rent
    for October 2012 to March 2013 is clear. The rent from April 2014
    to September 2014 was paid on 19.04.2014. It shows default of
    payment of rent for the month of April which was paid after 10th day
    of month. Similar is the position from October, 2015 to September,
    2016 and October, 2016 to September, 2017. In those cases, there
996                                                       [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


       was a default of payment of rent for the months of October 2015
       and November 2016.
20. If we peruse the payment of rent from October 2014 to September
    2015, deposited on 02.02.2015, again there was a default for October
    2014 to January 2015. Therefore, from the averments of the affidavit
    of the tenant, defaults in deposit of rent are clearly luculent, which
    cannot be ignored.
21. By the documents Annexures R2 and R4 also, default of continuous
    payment of rent during pendency either before the Trial Court or
    before the High Court or before this Court has not been rectified.
    During hearing, nothing has been brought on record by the
    respondent – tenant to substantiate that in compliance to the
    provisions of Section 20(4) and Section 30(1) of the UP Rent Act,
    regular rent from the date of receipt of notice of the suit has been
    deposited. Reference of some documents have been made by
    learned Trial Court, by which it is not clear that the rent deposited
    by the tenant was within the period of one month from the date
    of receipt of notice and the rent was paid regularly thereafter. In
    addition, it is not clear that in case of default, 9% interest has been
    paid. Simultaneously, deposit in one-go after the order of this Court
    would not absolve the tenant from consequence of non-payment
    or delayed payment of rent.
22. As per the discussion made hereinabove, we are constrained to hold
    that the tenant has not paid rent regularly during the pendency of
    the suit, revision and appeal, and was in default in payment of rent,
    tax and interest due. In a suit seeking eviction on the ground of
    arrears of rent, if the rent is not paid during the pendency, it can be
    a ground for directing eviction for non-payment of the rent. Therefore,
    the findings of the Trial Court, dismissing the suit seeking eviction,
    affirmed by the High Court without any appraisal of the material, do
    not appear to be justified.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant – landlord has placed reliance
    on a Constitution Bench decision in case of “Gian Devi Anand Vs.
    Jeevan Kumar and Ors.” (1985) 2 SCC 683, whereby in a Rent
    Control and eviction matter, this Court has specified the nature of
    the statutory tenancy and its concept. It was thereby held that the
    distinction between the contractual tenancy and the statutory tenancy
    is obliterated by Rent Control Legislation because the contractual
    tenancy would be converted into statutory tenancy. There cannot be
[2024] 9 S.C.R.                                                            997

Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His LRs v. Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. LRs


     any doubt in this regard, particularly in the facts of the case whereby
     the tenancy of the appellant, though contractual for a limited period,
     but continued by virtue of applicability of the provisions of UP Rent
     Act as accepted by the parties.
24. Underlying the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in rent eviction
    matters, this Court in “Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Versus
    Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat” (1969) 2 SCC 74, observed that
    revisional jurisdiction partakes the appellate jurisdiction of a superior
    Court. The right of appeal is one of entering a superior Court and
    invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the Court
    below. When the aid of High Court is invoked on the revisional side,
    it is done because it is a superior Court and it can interfere for the
    purpose of rectifying the error of the Court below. Further, in the
    case of “Babulal Nagar and others Versus Shree Synthetics
    Ltd. and others” (1984) Supp SCC 128, it was observed that
    jurisdiction to examine the propriety of the order or decision carries
    with it the same jurisdiction as the original authority to come to a
    different conclusion on the said set of facts. If any other view is taken,
    the expression “propriety” would lose its significance. Lastly, in the
    case of “Nalakanth Sainuddin versus Koorkikadan Sulaiman”
    (2002) 6 SCC 1, this Court observed that once a revision petition is
    entertained by the High Court, whichever be the party invoking the
    revisional jurisdiction, it acquires jurisdiction to call for and examine
    the records of the authority subordinate to it. Any illegality, irregularity
    or impropriety coming to its notice is capable of being corrected by
    it by passing such appropriate order or direction as the law requires
    and justice demands.
     Therefore, we are of the view that in the revision in the eviction
     matter, the High Court was required to look into the material placed
     and justifiability of the findings relying those documents. In absence
     of its satisfaction, interference ought to be have been made by the
     High Court and such revision cannot be thrown out on the ground
     of limited scope of jurisdiction.
25. Coming to the case in hand, the agreement of tenancy has been
    admitted with effect from 01.07.1985, on month-to-month basis and
    rent had to be paid against receipt. The said tenancy was for a period
    of five years. Clause 14 depicts that on expiry of five-year, it may
    be extendable by consent of landlord with enhancement @ 15%
    rent per month (claimed to be per annum). Indeed, it is true that no
    agreed lease agreement was entered into after 30.06.1990, but as
998                                                         [2024] 9 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


       per the provisions of the UP Rent Act, the tenancy would become
       statutory and subject to payment of the enhanced rent, the suit can
       be maintained. But, in case of consecutive default of monthly payment
       of rent and continuous non-payment as specified under the UP Rent
       Act, it may be a ground to grant decree of eviction.
26. In view of our foregoing discussions, it can safely be concluded that
    the respondent – tenant was in default in regular payment of monthly
    rent during pendency of the suit, revision before the High Court and
    also before this Court. He has deposited the amount deficit towards
    rent payment and house tax totaling to ₹50,048.56/- after the direction
    of this Court in one-go as specified above. The findings recorded
    by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are completely
    perverse and without appreciating the real intent of provisions of
    Sections 20 and 30 of UP Rent Act, therefore, liable to be set-aside.
27. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set-aside the orders passed
    by the Trial Court and the High Court and decree the suit filed by
    the appellant – landlord on the ground of non-payment of arrears of
    rent and direct eviction from the suit subject property.
28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as prayed by
    respondent(s) – tenant(s) we grant time up to 31.03.2025 to vacate
    the suit premises subject to payment of due rent and arrears thereof,
    after adjusting the amount of rent already deposited, within one month
    and continue to pay regular monthly rent for the permissible period
    of occupation. They shall hand over the vacant possession of the
    suit premises to the appellants on or before 31.03.2025 and shall
    not part with or create third party right therein. The respondents –
    tenants shall file usual undertaking on affidavit in this regard within a
    period of nine weeks from today before the Registrar, High Court of
    Judicature at Allahabad. The violation of the aforesaid terms would
    be treated as non-compliance of the order of this Court. Pending
    interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey