Allahabad High Court
Navin Chandra Porwal And Others vs Smt. Kanchan Girhotra And Others on 27 February, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2145, (2019) 134 ALL LR 120, (2019) 1 ALL RENTCAS 817, (2019) 1 RENCR 575
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 19 AFR Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 326 of 2010 Revisionist :- Navin Chandra Porwal And Others Opposite Party :- Smt. Kanchan Girhotra And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- P.K. Dubey,Dharampal Singh,S. Niranjan Counsel for Opposite Party :- J.S.P. Singh,B.N. Agarwal,Chowdhry Subhash Kumar,Sanjay Agrawal Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S. Niranjan for the revisionists (defendants-tenant) and Sri B. N. Agarwal for the plaintiffs-opposite party (landlord).
The instant revision is directed against the judgement and decree dated 3.5.2010 passed by Judge Small Causes Court in SCC Suit No.1 of 2005 whereby the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction has been decreed and the defendants were granted two months' time to vacate the disputed shop under their tenancy.
In brief the facts are that Smt. Kanchan Girhotra (since deceased) instituted the suit with the allegation that the defendants were tenant of a shop on a monthly rent of Rs.600/-. They were in arrears of rent since 1.11.1999 and despite service of notice dated 12.9.2003, rent was not paid, consequently they were liable to eviction.
The suit was contested by the defendants asserting that the rent of the disputed shop was Rs.60/- per month; that the erstwhile owner and landlord transferred the disputed shop in favour of the original plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 11.2.1999; that the defendants were not informed about the sale of the disputed shop in favour of the plaintiff; that the erstwhile owner and landlord suddenly stopped accepting rent, consequently, the defendants were compelled to deposit rent in Misc. Case No. 27 of 2002 under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act'); that rent upto 31.10.1999 was paid to the erstwhile owner and landlord; that rent from 1.11.1999 to 31.10.2003 was deposited in Misc. Case No.27 of 2002 in the name of erstwhile owner for want of information about transfer of the premises in favour of the plaintiff; that notice dated 12.9.2003 was given with a false assertion that rate of rent was Rs.600/- per month; that a correct reply to the said notice was given by the defendants on 20.9.2003; that rent from 1.1.2002 to 3.10.2005 had been deposited in the suit for availing the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act.
The trial court, after considering the evidence of the parties held that rent of the shop was Rs.60/- per month; that the defendants had full knowledge of the purchase of disputed shop by the plaintiff; that despite the said knowledge, they have defaulted in payment of rent from 1.11.1999 onwards; that the deposit made under Section 30(1) of the Act was in the name of erstwhile owner and landlord Chandra Prakash, the same was also withdrawn by the defendants; that notice determining the tenancy was duly served; that despite service of notice, no rent was paid to the plaintiff and thus there was default in payment of rent, making out a ground for eviction.
Counsel for the revisionists submitted that there was no default in payment of rent as the entire amount was in deposit either under Section 30(1) of the Act or in the suit itself. It is urged that once the amount was deposited under Section 30 of the Act, the benefit thereof should be given to the tenant, being a beneficial provision, even if the amount was later on withdrawn.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents submitted that since the amount deposited under Section 30(1) was withdrawn, therefore, it was rightly ignored from consideration.
The finding recorded by the trial court that no rent was paid to the plaintiff since 1.11.1999 is not under challenge. The defendants had deposited rent under Section 20(4) of the Act for the period 1.1.2002 to 3.10.2005, i.e., till the date of filing of the written statement. Rent for the period 1.11.1999 to 31.12.2001 was not deposited for the reason that the same had become barred by time. In Subhash Chand Jain vs. Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1989 (1) ARC 387 the Supreme Court held that for availing benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, even time barred arrears of rent has to be deposited. In order to meet the said shortfall, counsel for the revisionists has made an effort to impress upon this Court that deposit made under Section 30(1) of the Act should be taken into consideration.
Sub-section (4) of Section 20 stipulates that 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 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 landlords' costs of the suit in 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 that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground.
The benefit of deposit made under Section 30 could be extended to the tenant, while reckoning compliance of sub-section (4), provided the amount deposited in the said proceedings is available for withdrawal by the landlord. This is in view of sub-section (6) of Section 30 which stipulates that in case the deposit as stipulated under the provisions of Section 30 is made, it shall be deemed that a person depositing it had paid it on the date of such deposit to the person in whose favour it is deposited. Sub-section (4) of Section 30 cast an obligation upon the Court to issue notice of deposit to the landlord and whereupon it is open to such landlord to withdraw the amount. Thus for availing the benefit of the deposit made under Section 30(1) of the Act, not only should there be a deposit of rent in favour of the landlord but he should be in a position to withdraw the same. Concededly, in the instant case, the revisionists themselves withdrew the amount deposited under Section 30(1). Moreover, the said deposit was also not made in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court does not find any force in the submission that the deposit made under Section 30(1) should be taken into consideration to meet the shortfall in the amount deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act.
No other submission has been made by learned counsel for the revisionists. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
At this stage Sri D.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the revisionists prayed for six months time to vacate the dispute shop to which Sri B. N. Agarwal, counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has no objection.
Accordingly, it is further provided that in case the revisionists submit an undertaking before the trial court within four weeks from today that they would vacate the disputed shop within six months from today and would not induct any person during this period and also pays damages at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month as agreed to between the parties in advance within four weeks from today for entire period of six months, their eviction shall remain stayed for six months. In case of default of any of the above conditions, it shall be open to the plaintiff-opposite parties to execute the decree.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 skv (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)