Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by a tenant against an eviction decree. The appellant was a tenant against whom a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction had been instituted on grounds including default in payment of rent and material alterations. The trial court had decreed the suit for arrears, mesne profit and ejectment on 03.10.1981, which was upheld by the High Court in revision on 11.05.2010. The core legal issue was whether the tenant was entitled to protection against eviction under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, having deposited Rs.8910 towards arrears of rent, interest and costs before the first date of hearing. The appellant argued that the deposit was unconditional and met statutory requirements, while the lower courts had denied the benefit because the tenant had claimed the rent rate was Rs.45 per month whereas it was found to be Rs.150 per month. The Court analyzed the provisions and referred to the precedent in Vijay Laxmi Gangal v. Mahendra Pratap Garg, where it was held that the Act is a social legislation leaning in favour of tenants and discretionary relief should not be denied merely because the tenant failed to prove his case regarding quantum of rent if he had deposited the arrears at the rate claimed by the landlord. The Court found no dispute that the appellant had deposited the requisite amount before the first date of hearing, and the discrepancy in the rent rate claim did not render the deposit conditional. Consequently, the Court reversed the lower courts' decision on Issue No.6, held the appellant entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4), set aside the eviction decree, and allowed the appeal to that extent while maintaining the unchallenged parts of the decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control Law - Eviction Protection - Section 20(4) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Tenant deposited arrears of rent as demanded together with interest and costs before first date of hearing - Courts below denied benefit on ground tenant claimed rent rate of Rs.45/month while court found it to be Rs.150/month - Supreme Court held tenant entitled to protection as deposit was unconditional and met statutory requirements - Following Vijay Laxmi Gangal v. Mahendra Pratap Garg, discretionary relief cannot be denied merely because tenant's plea regarding quantum of rent is incorrect (Paras 3-5) B) Civil Procedure - Revision and Appeal - Reversal of Lower Court Findings - Trial court and High Court denied Section 20(4) benefit due to discrepancy in rent rate claim - Supreme Court reversed findings on Issue No.6 regarding entitlement to Section 20(4) benefit - Held appellant entitled to benefit and set aside eviction decree while maintaining unchallenged parts of decree (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant/tenant was entitled to protection against eviction under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 despite claiming a lower rate of rent than what was ultimately found by the court
Final Decision
Appeal allowed to the extent indicated; impugned order of High Court affirming eviction decree set aside; order of trial court directing eviction set aside; remaining part of decree maintained as no challenge made; no order as to costs; interim order, if any, stands discharged
Law Points
- Tenant protection under Section 20(4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting
- Rent and Eviction) Act
- 1972
- Discretionary relief not to be denied merely because tenant's plea regarding quantum of rent is found incorrect
- Deposit of arrears of rent as demanded together with interest and costs before first date of hearing entitles tenant to benefit
