Case Note & Summary
The case involved a tenant's appeal against a High Court judgment that directed his eviction from a shop owned by the respondent landlord. The tenant had been paying a monthly rent of Rs. 22 and had previously defaulted, leading to a first suit for recovery of rent and eviction. The Trial Court had initially ruled in favor of the tenant after he complied with the rent deposit requirements during the first suit. The landlord later filed a second suit alleging a second default for the period between November 5, 1983, and July 28, 1984, while the first appeal was pending. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the landlord in the second suit, but this was reversed by the Appellate Court. The High Court, however, restored the Trial Court's decree, prompting the tenant to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the tenant's deposit of rent during the appeal constituted valid payment and concluded that it did. The court emphasized that the tenant was not in default during the specified period as he had continued to deposit rent in court. The court found that the landlord's second suit was misconceived and that the tenant was entitled to relief against eviction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the dismissal of the landlord's eviction suit, while also cautioning against the implications of non-compliance with rent deposit during appeals in future cases.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Tenant's Default - Validity of Rent Deposit During Appeal - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, Section 13 - The court held that the tenant's compliance with the rent deposit during the appeal period negated the claim of default for eviction, as the tenant was not required to pay the same rent twice. The High Court's decision to uphold the landlord's claim was erroneous, leading to the dismissal of the eviction suit (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant can be said to have committed default in paying or tendering the rent for the period 05.11.1983 to 28.07.1984 despite depositing rent in court during the landlord's appeal against the decree in the first suit.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the tenant's appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the dismissal of the landlord's eviction suit, ruling that the tenant was not in default during the specified period due to compliance with rent deposit requirements.
Law Points
- Eviction of tenants
- Compliance with rent deposit
- Tenant's rights during appeal
- Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act
- 1950
