Shanti Prasad (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Thakur Dass (D) Thr. Lrs.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5981 OF 2014

SHANTI PRASAD (D) THR. LRs … Appellant

VERSUS

THAKUR DASS (D) THR. LRs & OTHERS … Respondents

ORDER

Matter is called out.

Learned counsel for the appellant is present but none is

present for the respondents.

There are 11 respondents in this appeal. As per office

report, respondent nos.1(i) to (vi), 3 and 5 are served but no one

has entered appearance on their behalf. Respondent nos. 2 and

4 have refused to accept notice. Notice upon respondent no.6

was served as per Certificate of Service received from the High

Court. Respondent nos.7 to 11 have refused to accept the notice

and, therefore, notices have been affixed at their residence. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Charanjeet Kaur Date: 2023.03.04 11:40:17 IST

In view of the above, service of notice on the respondents is Reason:

held sufficient.

2

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have

perused the record.

The appellant is a tenant. A suit for recovery of arrears of

rent and eviction was instituted against the appellant after

determining the tenancy inter alia on the ground of default in

payment of rent and making of material alteration in the

tenanted accommodation. After exchange of pleadings, the trial

court framed as many as eight issues. On Issue No.4 i.e.

whether the tenant/defendant has made material alterations in

the accommodation in dispute, the trial court returned a finding

in favour of the tenant. However, as rest of the issues were

decided against the tenant (appellant herein), the trial court

decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne

profit and ejectment.

Against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated

03.10.1981, Civil Revision No.467 of 1981 was filed before the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which came to be

dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated

11.05.2010.

3

Assailing the decree of ejectment, the learned counsel for

the appellant has raised a short point – whether in view of

deposit of Rs.8910/- made by the defendant/appellant towards

arrears of rent, interest and costs of the suit, vide application

dated 21st October 1978 (Annexure P2), the appellant/tenant was

entitled to protection against eviction in light of the provisions of

sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban

Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972

[U.P. Act No.13 of 1972] (for short “U.P. Act”)?

It is urged that there is no dispute that the requisite

amount was deposited before the first date of hearing, as would

be clear from the observations of the trial court in paragraph 12

of its judgment dated 03.10.1981. However, the benefit of sub-

section (4) of Section 20 has been denied only on the ground that

the appellant claimed the rate of rent as Rs.45 per month

whereas it was found to be Rs.150 per month. It is submitted

that the trial court and the revisional court have wrongly taken

the view that the above discrepancy would render the deposit

conditional thereby disentitling the defendant to the discretionary

relief under sub-section (4) of Section 20. 4

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel

for the appellant and perused the record. We find that the trial

court framed Issue No.6 as regards entitlement of the

defendant/appellant to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section

20. While returning a finding on Issue No.6, though the trial

court accepted that an amount of Rs.8910/- towards arrears of

rent, interest and costs of the suit was deposited by the

defendant/tenant before filing the written statement but held the

said deposit not unconditional as in the written statement, the

defendant pleaded the rate of rent as Rs.45/- per month, which,

ultimately, was found to be Rs.150/- per month. What is

important is that the trial court recorded no finding that the

amount deposited was short of the requisite amount or that it

was not by or before the first date of hearing in the suit.

In Vijay Laxmi Gangal v. Mahendra Pratap Garg1, a

three-Judge Bench of this Court while conferring the benefit of

the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act held

as follows:

“The Act is a social piece of legislation which leans in favour of tenants. Merely because the tenant had failed to prove his case that the rent was only Rs 125 per mensem and not Rs 360 per mensem, the discretionary relief could not be denied to him even though he had deposited the arrears of rent at the rate claimed by the landlord in the plaint together with interest and costs

1 (1985) 3 SCC 364 : AIR 1986 SC 753 5

within the time mentioned in Section 20(4) of the Act. It is not possible to lay down any broad and general proposition that the discretionary relief should be denied to the tenant in all cases where he fails to prove his case regarding the quantum of rent even though he had deposited the rent at the rate claimed by the landlord in the plaint together with interest and costs within the time as required by Section 20(4) of the Act.”

In light of the law expounded by this Court in Vijay Laxmi

Gangal (supra), while keeping in mind that there is no dispute

that on or before the first date of hearing the appellant had

deposited the arrears of rent as demanded together with interest

and costs of the suit, we are of the view that the appellant/tenant

was entitled to the benefit of the provision of sub-section (4) of

Section 20 of the U.P. Act and the courts below were not justified

in denying its benefit to the appellant/tenant only on the ground

that the plea taken by him with regard to the rate of rent was

found incorrect. Consequently, the decision of the courts below

on Issue No.6 is reversed. It is held that the appellant is entitled

to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act.

For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High

Court to the extent it affirms the decree of eviction is set-aside.

The order of the trial court to the extent it directs for eviction of

the appellant is set-aside. As no challenge to the remaining part

of the decree has been made before us, the remaining part of the

decree is maintained.

6

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There

is no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

..............................................J. (Manoj Misra)

..............................................J. (Aravind Kumar)

New Delhi;

March 01, 2023