Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for eviction filed by the landlord against the tenants on the grounds of arrears of rent. The suit was initiated on June 11, 1973, after the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came into force. The landlord contended that the Act did not apply to the shop in question as it was constructed in 1966, thus exempting it for ten years under Section 2(2). The tenants argued that they were entitled to the benefits of Section 39 due to their late deposit of rent arrears. During the proceedings, the tenants sought information regarding the construction date, which was not provided until after they deposited the arrears in April 1976. The Trial Court ruled against the tenants, stating they did not comply with the deposit requirements. The District Court upheld this ruling, referencing the precedent set in Om Prakash v. Digvijendrapal. However, the High Court later reversed this decision, stating that the tenants could not be penalized for the landlord's failure to disclose the construction date. The Supreme Court, upon appeal, found that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 39, emphasizing that the tenants failed to deposit the arrears within one month of knowing about the suit's pendency. The court restored the eviction decree, allowing the landlord to regain possession but granting the tenants until December 31, 1988, to vacate, provided they filed an undertaking. The court did not impose costs due to the circumstances of the case.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Deposit of Arrears - Timeliness of Deposit - U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 39 - The court held that the respondents failed to deposit arrears of rent within the stipulated time frame as required by Section 39, which necessitates deposit within one month from the date of knowledge of the suit's pendency. The High Court's view that the deposit made in April 1976 was valid was incorrect as it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Act (Paras 1086F-G, 1086E-F).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit under Section 39 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 due to their late deposit of rent arrears.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the eviction decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Revisional Court. The court directed that the respondents would not be dispossessed until December 31, 1988, provided they filed an undertaking.
Law Points
- Deposit of arrears of rent
- Section 39 compliance
- knowledge of suit pendency
- obiter dicta
- applicability of U.P. Urban Building Act
