Case Note & Summary
Background: The case involved eviction proceedings under Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 concerning a shop in Udaipur. The respondent landlords filed a second eviction suit against the appellant tenant, alleging a second default in payment of rent, because the tenant had previously obtained protection from eviction under Section 13(6) in an earlier suit but again defaulted for six months from May 1, 1982. Facts: The first eviction suit (No.117 of 1981) resulted in protection to the tenant under Section 13(6). On December 20, 1982, landlords filed Suit No.169 of 1983 claiming that the tenant had not paid rent for six months from May 1, 1982. The tenant contested, asserting that he paid rent for May to September 1982 in cash, but when he went for receipts on October 21, 1982, the landlords refused and returned the amount. He then filed an application under Section 19-A before Munsiff (South), Udaipur on October 22, 1982, and after permission deposited Rs. 3,600/- on October 29, 1982 for rent May-October 1982. The trial court (Additional District Judge No.1, Udaipur) dismissed the suit on July 2, 1987, holding the tenant not a defaulter because the deposit was made before six months' rent fell due. The High Court reversed this on January 25, 1989, finding the personal payment plea not credible and the deposit under Section 19-A invalid. The Division Bench dismissed the tenant's special appeal on March 8, 1989. Legal Issues: Two main issues were considered: (1) whether the plaint's statement that cause of action arose on November 1, 1982 was correct under Section 19-A(1) and whether any error was fatal; (2) whether the tenant's deposit of Rs. 3,600/- in court on October 29, 1982 under Section 19-A was valid and protected him from eviction. Arguments: Appellant's counsel contended that under Section 19-A(1), rent for October 1982 was payable by November 15, 1982, so cause of action for default for six months did not arise on November 1, 1982; thus the plaint's date was incorrect. He also argued that the deposit was made before rent for six months fell due, so tenant should not be treated as defaulter. The respondents relied on the plaint's statements and the fact that deposit did not comply with Section 19-A(3) clause (c). Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court noted that while Section 19-A(1) made rent payable by the 15th of next month, the cause of action for default of May-October 1982 would arise on November 16, 1982, not November 1, 1982. However, under Order VII Rule 1(e) CPC, an error in stating the date of cause of action is not fatal if the cause of action had actually arisen before the suit and the suit is within limitation. Here, suit was filed on December 20, 1982, by which time seven months' rent was outstanding as per paragraph 7 of the plaint. Therefore the first contention was rejected. On the deposit issue, the Court examined Section 19-A(3) which prescribes modes of deposit: money order, bank deposit, or court deposit upon specified conditions. The appellant's counsel conceded that the conditions in clause (c) were not fulfilled. The Court thus held that the deposit in court was not a valid deposit, and the tenant could not claim the deeming benefit of Section 19-A(4). Consequently, the second default stood. Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the tenant's appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the tenant committed a second default in payment of rent and that the deposit under Section 19-A was invalid, thereby upholding the landlords' right to evict the tenant.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Second Default - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, Sections 13(1)(a), 13(6) - A tenant who had obtained protection from eviction under Section 13(6) in earlier proceedings is liable to eviction if he again defaults in payment of rent for six months. The second suit was based on non-payment of rent from May 1982 to October 1982; the tenant claimed personal payment but the High Court found this plea not credible. Held that the second default was established, and tenant could not claim benefit of invalid deposit. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Cause of Action - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 1(e), Rule 11 - An error in the plaint in stating the date when the cause of action arose is not fatal if the cause of action had arisen before the suit and the suit is within limitation. Under Section 19-A(1) of the rent Act, rent for October 1982 became payable by 15 November 1982, so cause of action for default for May-October 1982 arose on 16 November 1982, not 1 November 1982 as pleaded; however, the suit was filed on 20 December 1982, by which time seven months' rent was outstanding as per plaint para 7. Held that the misstatement did not disentitle the landlords from seeking eviction. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Rent Control - Deposit of Rent - Mode of Deposit - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, Section 19-A(3), (4) - Deposit of rent in court is valid only if the tenant complies with the pre-conditions in clause (c): remittance by postal money order returned refused/unfound, failure of landlord to specify bank account, or bona fide doubt as to payee. The appellant did not fulfil any of these conditions and directly deposited Rs. 3,600 in court on 29 October 1982. Held that the deposit was invalid and could not be treated as payment or tender of rent under Section 19-A(4), leaving the tenant in default. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Rent Control - Payment of Rent - Due Date - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, Section 19-A(1) - Rent becomes due as soon as the month ends; the provision allowing payment by the 15th of the next following month is a facility to the tenant and does not postpone the accrual of liability. The High Court correctly held that rent for October 1982 was due on 1 November 1982 even though payable by 15 November 1982; the Supreme Court noted appellant's argument was partly correct but ultimately did not affect liability for second default. Held that the due date principle did not assist the tenant because the deposit was invalid. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Main questions of law considered by the court: (1) Whether the plaint's statement that cause of action arose on 1.11.1982 was correct and if incorrect, whether the suit was liable to fail; (2) Whether the tenant's deposit of rent in court on 29.10.1982 under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 was valid and protected him from eviction for second default.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant, thereby affirming the High Court's decision that the tenant committed a second default in payment of rent for six months and that the deposit under Section 19-A was invalid.
Law Points
- Tenant who has once obtained protection under Section 13(6) from eviction on ground of default loses protection on second default for six months
- deposit of rent in court under Section 19-A is valid only if conditions in clause (c) of sub-section (3) are satisfied
- error in plaint as to date of cause of action is not fatal if cause of action arose before suit and suit is within limitation
- rent becomes due at end of month though payable by 15th of next month.
