Holding

Depositing rent in court under Section 30(1) and the deeming provision of Section 30(6) makes the rent deemed paid to the landlord, thereby relieving the tenant from liability of eviction.

Summary

The appellant, a tenant, continued to pay rent by depositing it in the Munsif's court under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 after the landlord's heirs refused to accept his tender. The landlords served a notice demanding vacating the premises and payment of arrears, but the tenant replied that he was ready to pay if the landlord accepted, otherwise he would keep depositing rent in court. The landlord filed an eviction suit; lower courts held the tenant in default for more than four months and ordered eviction. The Supreme Court examined whether the deposit of rent in court, as per Section 30(6), deemed the rent paid to the landlord and thus protected the tenant from eviction. It held that, given the bona‑fide dispute and the landlord's refusal to accept rent, the tenant was justified in depositing the rent and was not liable to be evicted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the orders of the lower courts were set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a tenant who deposits rent in court under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972 is deemed to have tendered rent to the landlord.
Whether the deeming provision of Section 30(6) relieves the tenant from liability of eviction despite alleged arrears of more than four months.
Whether the landlord's notice requirement and the four‑month arrears rule are satisfied when the tenant deposits rent in court.

Legislation cited

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 10, s. 13(6), s. 20(1), s. 20(2)(a), s. 20(4), s. 30(1), s. 30(4), s. 30(6), s. 39, s. 40

Subjects

landlord‑tenantevictionrent depositSection 30deeming provisionbona fide disputeU.P. Urban Buildings Actrent arrearscivil appeal

Judgment

A KAMESHWAR SINGH SRIVASTAVA'
v.
IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE LUCKNOW & ORS.

NOVEMBER l.J, !986

B [SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]

U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, l972-Sections 20 & 30-Bonafide dispute as regards landlord's
right to receive rent-Landlord refusing to accept rent without justifi·
cation-Tenant entitled to initiate proceedings to deposit rent in Court.
c J"
On the d•ath of the owner, landlord of the tenanted premises, his '
heirs respondents, Nos. 3 to 12 became the owners. The appellant-
tenant tendered· rent to respondent No. 3 hut he did not accept the
same. The appellant made application before the Munsif under s. 30( 1)
of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction)
D Act, 1972, who permitted deposit of the rent and since then the appel·
lant had been depositing rent in the Munsirs Court. The respondent-
landlords served a notice on the appellant calling upon him to vacate the
premises, hand over possession and pay the arrears of rents from
18.10.1979 to 17.9.1982. In his reply the appellant stated that he was

J
ready and willing to pay the rent, and if respondent No. 3 was willing to
E accept the rent he may inform him within reasonable time so that he
may pay the same to him otherwise he would deposit the rent in the
I
Munsirs Court. The respondent-landlords did not give any reply to the
appellant instead they filed suit for his eviction. Meanwhile the appel-
lant deposited the entire amount of arrears in Munsirs Court.

F The Judge, Small Causes Court, decreed the suit holding that the
appellant had committed default for a period of four months from the / )
date of suit. The revision filed hy the appellant was dismissed by the ' ;
District Judge. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant \
under Article 226 holding that the appellant had failed to tender arrears
of rent within one month from the date of service of notice on him and,
G therefore, he was liable to ejectment.

In appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant-tenant it was
urged, that the courts below failed to appreciate, that the appellant had
all along been ready and willing to pay the rent to the landlords and in
the reply to the notice he had offered to pay rent on hearing from
H respodent No. 3 but since the appellant did not receive any reply, he
K.S. SRIVASTAVA v. IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE 225

deposited the rent in Munsif's Court under s. 30 and, therefore, be was A
not liable to ejectment. On Iiehalf of the respondent-landlords it was
urged that all the three Courts have recorded findings holding the .
appellant in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months on
the date of the snit, therefore, the impugned orders do not suffer from
any illegality warranting inte'rference by this Court.
ll
Allowing the appeal of the appellant-tenant,

HELD: !. The High Court as well as the Courts below. have
taken a too technical view in holding the appellant guilty of wilful
default in payment of rent. [230B]
c
2. The High Court as well as the Courts below have committed error in
holding that the appellant had failed to pay arrears of rent, for a period
of more than four months and on that ground he was liable to ejectment
from the premises in dispute. [23!8]

3. On landlord's serving notice of demand on a tenant who may D
be in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months, and on the
tenant's failure to tender the rent to the landlord within one month
from the service of the notice, the tenant is liable to eviction, but in the
instant case, having regard to the special facts and circumstances avail-
able on the record it cannot be said that the appellant failed to tender
lhe rent to the landlords or that he was in arrear for a period of more E
than four months. He was all along aready to pay and since the landlord
did not give any reply to his notice, he was justified in depositing the
arrears in the Munsif's Court. Since the deposit was made it must be
deemed that the appellant had tendered rent to the landlords as contem-
A of
plated bys. 13(6) the Act. [230H-231B]
'· 4. The question whether the tenant is justified in depositing the
F

rent in Court and whether the deeming provision of s. 30(6) would be
applicable to. relieve him from the liability of eviction would depend
upon facts of each case. The llppellant, in the instant case, had relieved
himself from the liability of eviction and he was not in arrears of rent
for a period of more than four months. [23!F-G] G

.>-· 5. The scheme, structure and the policy discernible from the pro-
I
visions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972 umnistakahly aim at regulating the conditions of
tenancy, rent and preventing eviction of tenants. The legislature has
taken care to make special provisions protecting the interest of tenants H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!987] l S.C.R.

A from eviction while placing obligation on him to pay rent. The right of a
tenant not to be evicted and the prohibition against a landlord from
seeking eviction execept upon specified grounds are well protected by
the provisions of the Act, and the tenant is afforded an opportunity to
pay arrears of rent even after filing of the suit and, in some cases even
after a decree of eviction is passed. [229G-230A]
B
6. The special provisions as contained in ss. 30(4), 30, 39 and 40
indicate the legislative policy to safeguard the interest of a tenant, who
deposits rent in accordance with those provisions. The Court must st·
rive to so interpret the statute as to protect and advance the object and --(
purpose of the enactment. Any narrow or technical interpretation of the
C provisions would defeat the legislative policy. The Courts must, there-
fore, keep the legislative policy in mind in applying the provisions of the
Act to the facts of the case. [230B]

7. Primarily a tenant is under a legal obligation to pay rent to the
landlord as and when due and if be fails to pay the same on demand
. D .. from the landlord and if be is in arrears for a period of more than four
months he would be liable to ejectment. Where there is a bonafide
dispute regarding the landlord's right to receive rent on account of their
being several claimants or if the landlord refuses to accept the rent
without there being any justification for the same, the tenant would be
justified to take proceeding under s. 30 of the Act and deposit the rent
E in 'Court. Thereupon be would be deemed to have paid the rent to
landlord, consequently,. be would be relieved of liability of eviction. It
does not, however, follow that the tenant is entitled to disregard the
landlord or ignore bis demand for payment of rent to him and deposit
the same in Court. Tbe1re should be justification for depositing rent in
court, in the absence of any justification, tenant would be liable to A
F eviction. [23IC·E] f ;

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 203
of 1986

G °From the Judgment and Ordet dated 16.7.1985 of the Allahabad
High Court in W.P. No. 995 of 1985.

Manoj Swaroop and Ms. Lalita Kohli for the Appellant.

A.K. Gupta, Brij Bhushan Sharma and S.K. Dhingra for t~e
H Respondents.
K.S. SRIVASTAVA v. IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE (SINGH, J.] · 227

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A

SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
Judgment and Order of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow
Bench) dated 16.7.85 dismissing the appellant's petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders for his eviction from
the premises in dispute. B

Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are, that the appellant
was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.100 of house No. 293/246 situated
in old Haider Ganj of which N.N. Meithy was the owner and landlord.
On Meithy's death his heirs respondents nos. 3 to 12 became the
owners of the house. It appears that the appellant tendered rent to C
Prabhat Kumar respondent no. 3 but he did not accept the same. The
appellant made ·application before the Munsif under section 30( 1) of
the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Munsif permitted
the appellant to· deposit rent and since then the appellant has been
depositing rent in the Munsifs court. The respondent-landlords served D
a notiee dated 4.8.82 on the appellant on 9.8.82 through their counsel
calling upon him to vacate the premises and hand over possession to
them and to pay the arrears with effect from 18.10.1979 to 17.9.1982.
The appellant through his Advocate gave a reply to thb notice on
6.9.82 stating therein that he was ready and willing to pay the rent, and
if Prabhat Kumar Meithy, respondent no. 3 was willing to accept the E
rent he may inform the appellant within reasonable time so that he ·
may pay the same .to him otherwise he would deposit the rent in the
Miscellaneous Case No. 57/78 in the Munsifs court. The respondent-
landlords did not give any reply to the appellant instead they filed suit
for eviction. Meanwhile the appellant deposited the entire amount of
arrears in Munsifs court on 6.10.1982. The appellant contested the F
eviction proceedings before the Judge, Small Causes Court on the
ground that he was always ready and willing to pay rent and on land-
lords' refusal he had deposited rent in the court under section 30( l) of
the Act therefore he was not liable to ejectment. The Judge, Small
Causes Court decreed the suit on the findings that the appell;u;t had
committed default for a period of four months from the date of suit. G
The appellant preferred revision before the District Judge which was
dismissed on 22.2.85. Thereafter the appellant approached the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief for
quashing the order-of the Trial Court as well as Revisional court. A
learned single judge of the High Court by his order dt. 16.7.1985
dismissed the petition on the finding that the appellant had failed to H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

tender the arrears of rent to the landlord within one month from the
A
date of service of notice on him therefore he was liable to ejectment
and the findings recorded by the subordinate court did not suffer from
any legal infirmity.

Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the High Court and
B the courts below failed to appreciate that the appellant had all along
been ready and willing to pay the rent to the landlords and in his reply
to the notice dated 6.9.82 he had offered to pay the rent on hearing
from Prabhat Kumar Meithy, respondent no. 3. But since the appel-
lant did not receive any reply· he deposited the rent in Munsifs court in
proceedings taken under section 30 of the Act, therefore he was not
-f
C liable to ejectment. On behalf of the respondent-landlords it was
urged that all the three courts have recorded findings holding the
appellant in arrears of rent for a p~riod of more than four months on ~-·
the date the suit was instituted, therefore the impugned orders do not
suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court.
Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by
D the counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record,
and after considering the relevant provisions of the Act we are of the
opinion that the High Court as well as the courts below have taken a
too technical view in holding the appellant guilty of wilful default in
payment of rent.

E The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent & Evic-
tion) Act, 1972 was enacted as the preamble indicates to provide, in
the interest of the general public, for the regulation of letting and rent,
and the eviction of tenants from, certain classes of buildings situate in
urban areas, and for matters connect,ed therewith. Section .J imposes
prohibition on a landlord to take or receive for admitting a 1enant to
F any building any premium or additional payment over and above the
rent payable by him. Sections 8 and 9 provided for determination of
n'
standard rent in ~he absence of any agreement between the tenant and l._.
the landlord. Section 11 curtails right of a landlord to induct any tenant
in a building in pursuance of an allotment order issued under sec. 16.
Section 16 provides for allotment of building which may have fallen
G vacant or is about io fall vacant, or a part thereof to the landlord if he
bonafide requires the same. Section 20( 1) prohibits igstitution of a suit
by landlord for eviction of a tenant except on the grounds specified
under sub-sec. (2). Section 20(2)(a) permits filing of a suit by a land-
lord for the eviction of a tenant, after determination of his tenancy if
the tenant is in arrear of rent for a period of not less than four months,
H and he has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month
K.S. SRIVASTAVA' v. IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE [SINGH, J.] 229

from the date of service upon him a notice of demand. When the .A
tenant fails to pay arrears ·of rent within one month from .the date of
service of notice of demand the landlord is entitled to obtain decree of
eviction but the legislature has provided another opportunity t0 the
tenant to relieve himself from the liability of eviction. Section 20(4)
safeguards tenants from eviction if on the first date of hearing of the
suit he unconditionally pays, or tenders to the landlord or deposits the B
entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the
building together with interest thereon @9% and the landlords' costs
of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount
r depoited by him under sub-sec. (I) of sec. 30. lf that is done the Court
· is bound to pass orders relieving the tenant from liability of eviction.
Legislative policy to protect the tenant from eviction is further evi- c
denced from sec. 39 and 40. Section 39 protects a tenant from eviction,
it lays down that if a suit for eviction on the ground of default in
payment of a_rrears of rent was pending on the date of commencement
of the Act no decree for eviction shall be passed if the tenant deposited
arrears of rent within one month from the date of commencement of
the Act. Section 40 also protects tenants from eviction in similar D
circumstances even at the stage of the pendency of appeal or revision.
Section 10 of the Act lays down that if a dispute or difference arises as
to the entitlement of landlord to receive rent, the tenant may deposit
rent in the prescribed manner and continue to do so in the Munsif's
court, until the landlord signifies in writing his readiness and willing-
ness to accept the rent and if the landlord does not accept tb.e rent it is E
operi to the tef\ant to deposit the rent in Munsif's court. Once deposit
is made under sub-sec. (I) the court shall cause notice of the deposit to
be served on the landlord and the amount so deposited may be with-
drawn by' him on an application made by him to the couri. Section
,-.. 30(6) declare~ that if deposit is made under sub-sec. (I) or under
·. sub-sec. (3) of the Act in Munsif's court it shall be deemed that the F
tenant has paid the rent to the landlord. The deeming provision stipu-
lates that if the tenant is permitted to deposit rent in court, it will
amount to payment of rent to. the landlord and no decree for eviction
of tenant can legally be passed on the ground of arrears of rent.

The Scheme and structure and the policy discernible from the · G
provisions of the Act, as discussed, unmistakably aim at regulating the
conditions of tenancy, rent and preventing eviction of tenants .. The
legislature has taken care to make special provisions protecting the
interest of tenants from eviction while placing obligation on him to pay
rent. The right of a tenant not to be evicted and the prohibition against
l
a landlord from seeking eviction except upon specified grounds are H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] I S.C.R.

A well protected by the provisions of the Act and the tenant is afforded
opportunity to pay arrears of rent even after filing of the suit, and, in
some cases even after a decree of eviction is passed. The special provi-
sions as contained in secs. 30(4), 30; 39 and 40 indicate the legislative
policy to safeguard the interest of a tenant, who he deposits rent in
accordance with those provisions. The court must strive to so interpret
B the statute as to protect and advance the object and purpose of the
enactment. Any narrow or technical interpretation of the provisions
would defeat the legislative policy. The courts must therefore keep the
legislative policy in mind in applying the provisions of the act to facts
of each case.

c In the instant case on the death of N.N. Meithy the original
landlord, eight different persons respondents nos. 3 to 12 succeeded to
him. The appellant was in doubt as to which of them was entitled to
receive rent, he made an attempt to tender rent to Prabhat Kumar,
respondent no. 3 but he refused to accept the same, thereupon the
appellant made an application under sec. 30( I) in the Munsifs court
D and on the permission being granted to him he continued to deposit
rent in that court. It is true that on service of the landlord's notice of
demand on 8.9.82 the appellant did not tender the amount to the
respondents, instead he gave a reply on 6. 9 .82 stating therein that he
was willing to pay the rent to the landlord, Prabhat Kumar, respondent
no. 3 if he expressed his willingness in writing to accept the same. The
E appellant's insistence in requesting Prabhat Kumar to signify his wil-
lingness in writing appears to be founded on the provision of sec. 30( l)
of the Act. It is noteworthy that in his notice dt. 6.9.82 the appellant
bad clearly stated that he was ready and willing to pay the rent to
Prabhat Kumar if ,:~ signified his willingness in writing to accept the
rent within a reasonable time otherwise he would deposit the same in r
F the Munsifs court in Misc. Case no. 57 of 1978. Admittedly the appel- J ·
!ant's notice di. 6.9.82 was served on the respodent-landlords but no ~
reply was sent to the appellant, instead they filed suit for his eviction. .\. .
Since no reply was received by the appellant from the landlords he
deposited the arrears of rent in the Munsifs court in Misc. Case No.
57 /78. In the face of these facts and circumstances it would be unjust to
G hold the appellant in arrears of rent, rendering him liable to eviction.
It is true that on landlord's serving notice of demand on a tenant who
may be in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months and on
the tenant's failure to tender the rent to the landlord within one month
from the service of the notice the tenant is liable to eviction, but in the
instant case having regard to the special facts and circumstances avail-
H able on the record we do not find that the appellant failed to tender the
K,S, SRIVASTAVA v. IV ADDL. DIST. JU!JGE [SINGH, J.] 231

....,.. rent to the landlords or that he was in arrear for a period of more than
A
four months. He was all along ready to pay and since the landlords did
not give any reply to his notice dt. 6.9.82 he was justified in depositing
the arrear in the Munsifs court. Since the deposit was made it must be
deemed that the appellant had tendered rent to the landlords as con-
templated by sec. 13(6) of the Act. In this view the High Court as well
as.the courts below committed error in holding that the appellant had B
x failed to pay arrears of rent for a period of more than four months and
on that ground he was liable to ejectment from the premises in dispute.

- r
We should not be understood to have laid down that the tenant
should deposit rent in court instead of paying the same to the landlord.
Primarily a tenant is under a legal obligation to pay rent to the land-
lord as and when due· and if he fails to pay the same on 'demand from c
..', the landlord and if he is in arrears for a period. of more than four
.... months he would be liable to ejedment. Where there is a bonafide
dispute regarding the landlord's right to receive rent on account' of
there being several claimants or if the landlord refuses to accept the
rent without there being any justification for the same, the tenant
D
would be ,entitled to take proceeding under sec. 30 of the Act and
deposit the rent in court thereupon he would be deemed to have paid
the rent to the landlord, consequently he would be relieved of his
liability of eviction: It does not however follow that the tenant is
entitled to disregard the landlord or ignore his demand for payment of
--....,..- rent to him. The provisions of the Act safeguard tenant's interest but it
E
must be kept in mind that the landlord's right to receive rent and in the
event of the tenant's being in arrears of rent for a period of more than
four months, his right to evict the tenant is preserved. If the tenant
makes the deposit in court without there being any justification for the
same or if he· refuses to pay the rent even on the service of notice of
.'°"., demand by the landlord, he would be liable to eviction. However the
F
.i question whether the tenant is justified in depositing the rent in court
and whether deeming provision of section 30(6) would be available,
/ him to relieve him from the liability of eviction would depend upon
facts of each case. As noted earlier on the special facts of the instant /

case we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant had relieved
himself from the liability of eviction and he was not in arrears of rent
G
for a period of more than four months.
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the orders of the High
:>-- Court and the subordinate courts and dismiss the respondent-land-
lords' suit. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to
costs.
H
A.P.J. Appeal allowed.