Mangal Sen Vs. Kanchhid Mal [1981] INSC
144 (20 August 1981)
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) ERADI, V.
BALAKRISHNA (J) PATHAK, R.S.
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION: 1981 AIR 1726 1982 SCR (1) 331 1980
SCC (4) 117 1981 SCALE (3)1242
CITATOR INFO :
D 1986 SC1753 (9)
ACT:
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, section 20(2) (a) (4)-Scope of.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent-landlord filed a suit under
section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act 1972 against the appellant praying for his eviction from the suit premises.
It was alleged that the tenant was in arrears of rent for not less than four
months from April 9, 1972, that he had failed to pay the same within one month
from the date of the notice to him and that the tenant had declined to pay
arrears of rent despite the notice.
While denying the allegation of default in
payment of rent the tenant claimed that since he stood surety for the landlord
for the payment of arrears of sales tax payable by him there could not be any
question of arrears of rent being outstanding against him to the landlord.
Although the trial Court found it as a fact
that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent for more than four
months after the notice of demand had been issued it held that the landlord's
action in inducing the tenant to stand surety for him for payment of arrears of
sales tax constituted waiver of the demand for rent and that for this reason
the landlord was not entitled to the relief of ejectment.
In revision the District Judge found that the
tenant had at no stage of the proceedings before the trial Court put forward
the plea of waiver but that an issue had been framed by the trial Court of its
own accord. On merits the District Judge held that no conduct on the part of
the landlord which amounted to waiver had been established because the tenant
had not actually made any payment on behalf of the landlord towards the sales
tax dues.
The High Court dismissed the tenant's revision
petition under section 115 C.P.C.
[Since in the special leave petition the
tenant contended that the revision petition Sled by him in the High Court was
not maintainable in law, this Court granted special leave to appeal against the
judgment of the District Court.] 332 Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: The District Court was right in holding
That in the absence of any plea of waiver put forward by the tenant the trial
Court was not really called upon to go into that question. Therefore, the
finding of the trial Court that the landlord's notice had been effaced by his
(landlord's) subsequent conduct which amounted to waiver was manifestly illegal
and perverse. It was the specific case of the tenant that no amount whatever
had been paid by him to the sales tax authorities on behalf of the landlord.
Neither did the landlord make any endorsement on the rent deed adjusting the
proposed payment of sales tax against arrears of rent. [335 A-D] Having failed
to establish that he had complied with the conditions specified in section
20(4) of the Act the tenant is not entitled to be relieved against his
liability for eviction on the ground set out in section 20(2 )(a) of the Act.
[336 H-337 A] The provisions of section 20(4) will get attracted only if the
tenant had at the first hearing of the suit unconditionally paid or tendered to
the landlord the entire amount of rent and damages due from him for use and
occupation of the building together with interest thereon at 9% per annum.
There is nothing on record to show that the deposit was made on the first date
of hearing and that it was made by way of unconditional tender for payment to
the landlord. On the contrary the tenant in his written statement, had stated
that since he had IL stood surety for the landlord's arrears of sales tax,
there was no default by him r in the payment of rent. In the face of a plea
disputing the existence of any arrears of rent and denying the default the
deposit even if made on the date of the first hearing, was not an unconditional
tender of the amount for payment to the landlord. Nor is there anything on the
record to show that what was deposited was the correct amount calculated in
accordance with the provisions of section 20(4) of the Act. [336 D-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 965 of 1980 Appeal by special leave from the judgment dated the 28th
November, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No.661 of 1977.
Manoj Swarup & Miss Lalita Kohli for the
Appellant.
R. N. Sharma and N. N. Sharma for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. This appeal by special leave is against a judgment
rendered by the First Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, allowing a
Revision Petition filed before him by the respondent herein.
333 The respondent is the owner of a shop
building in Jahangirabad town which he had let out to the appellant on a month
to month tenancy basis. A suit for ejectment was filed by the respondent in the
Court of Small Causes (Civil Judge), Bulandshahr, praying for eviction of the
appellant from the shop under Section 2() (2) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, the Act) on
the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent for not less than four months
commencing from April 9, 1972 and had failed to pay the same to the landlord
within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand
(October 19, 1972). It was alleged in the plaint that the agreed rent of the
shop was Rs. 100/- per month and that the tenant had kept the rent in arrears
from April 9, 1972 onwards despite notice having been served on him on October
19, 1972 demanding payment of arrears of rent and determining the tenancy.
The appellant (defendant) pleaded in defence
that the rent was only Rs. 90/- per month, that he had not committed any
default in payment of the same and hence the suit for ejectment was not
maintainable. According to the defendant, after service of the notice of demand
for payment of arrears of rent, the respondent had approached him with a
request to stand surety for him for the payment of arrears of sales-tax due by
him for the realisation of which the Amin had come with a warrant for the
arrest of the respondent and since the appellant had acceded, to the said
request and stood surety for the respondent there could be no further question
of any arrears of rent being outstanding as due by him to the respondent.
The trial court held that the rent of the
shop was Rs.
90/- per month, that it had been kept in
arrears by the tenant from April 9, 1972 onwards and a default had been
committed by the tenant in payment of arrears of rent of more than four months
after the notice of demand.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid finding that
there had been such default committed by the tenant, the trial court took the
view that the conduct of the plaintiff-respondent in inducing the defendant to
stand surety for him for the payment of sales-tax arrears due by him
constituted a waiver of the demand made in the notice for surrender of
possession on the ground of arrears of rent made. On this reasoning, the trial
court denied the plaintiff the relief of ejectment and decreed the suit only
for recovery of arrears of rent.
The respondent-plaintiff carried the matter
in revision before District Court, Bulandshahr. The learned District Judge
found that 334 the plea of waiver had not been put forward by the defendant
either in the written statement or in any other manner at any stage before the
trial court and that the issue covering the question of waiver had been framed
by the trial court of its own accord. The District Judge further found on the
merits that no conduct amounting to waiver on the part of the plaintiff had
been established by the evidence because even according to the case of the
defendant himself, excepting for standing surety for the plaintiff, he had not
actually made any payment on behalf of the plaintiff towards the sales-tax dues
since the plaintiff had specifically refused to make any endorsement in the
Rent Deed adjusting the proposed payment of sales-tax against the arrears of
rent due by the defendant. Inasmuch as the trial court had found that the
default in payment of the arrears of rent for a period exceeding four months
had been committed by the defendant and it had denied a relief of ejectment
only on the reasoning that there had been a waiver of the demand for eviction
on the part of the plaintiff, the District Judge allowed the Revision Petition
and granted the plaintiff a decree for ejectment under Section 20 (2) (a) of
the Act.
Thereafter, the appellant defendant took up
the matter in further revision before the High Court under Section 115, Code of
Civil Procedure. The High Court by its judgment dated November 28, 1979
confirmed the findings of the District Judge and dismissed the Revision
Petition.
The defendant thereupon approached this Court
for the grant of special leave to appeal against the said judgment of the High
Court. It would appear that, at the time of the preliminary hearing of the Special
Leave Petition, the appellant realised that the Revision Petition filed by him
before the High Court was not maintainable in law. Hence, this position was
conceded by the appellant before a Bench which heard the Special Leave Petition
and a request was made by the appellant for the grant of special leave to him
to appeal against the judgment of the District Court. That request was granted
by order of this Court dated April 23, 1980. This Civil Appeal is thus directed
against the judgment of the District Judge.
After hearing counsel on both sides, we are
satisfied that the District Court was perfectly right in its view that there
had not been any conduct on the part of the plaintiff which would constitute a
waiver by him of the demand for surrender of possession made as 335 per the
notice dated October 9, 1972 which was served on the tenant on October 19,
1972. As rightly observed by the District Court, the defendant had not put
forward any plea of waiver in the written statement filed by him before the trial
court and the absence of any specific pleading in that behalf, the trial court
was not really called upon to go into the question of waiver. Further, it being
the specific case put forward by the defendant himself that no amount whatever
had been paid by the appellant-defendant to the sales-tax authorities on behalf
of the plaintiff and that the respondent-plaintiff was not agreeable to make
any endorsement on the Rent Deed adjusting the proposed payment of sales-tax
against the arrears of rent, we fail to see how it can be said that there had
been any waiver by the plaintiff-respondent of the demand for surrender of
possession already made by him as per the notice dated October 9, 1972. The
finding rendered b)! the trial court that the effect of the notice had been
effaced by the subsequent conduct on the part of the landlord which amounted to
a waiver was manifestly illegal and perverse and it was rightly set aside by
the District Judge.
Before us, an additional point was sought to
be raised by the appellant which had not been put forward by him either before
the trial court or before the District Judge at the revisional stage. It was
urged that on the date of first hearing of the suit the defendant had deposited
into the trial court an amount of Rs. 1,980/- and hence he is entitled to the
benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act which empowers the Court to
pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on the
ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of the said Section. It is
necessary in this context to reproduce clause (a) of sub-section (2) and
sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. They are in the following terms:
"20
(2)..........................................
(a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent for
not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord
within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand.
(4) In any suit for eviction on the ground
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the
suit, the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord the entire
amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him
(such damages for 336 use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as
rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and
the landlord's costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom
any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub- section (I) of Section
30, the court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground,
pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that
ground:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section
shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built
or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after
acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified
area or town area." The provisions of sub-section (4) will get attracted
only if the tenant has, at the first hearing of the suit, unconditionally paid
or tendered to the landlord the entire amount of rent and damages for use and
occupation of the building due from him together with interest thereon at the
rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit in respect
thereof, after deducting there from any amount already deposited by him under
sub-section (I) of Section 30. There is absolutely no material available on the
record to show that the alleged deposit of Rs. 1,980/- was made by the tenant
on the first date of hearing itself and, what is more important, that the said
deposit was made by way of an unconditional tender for payment to the landlord.
The deposit in question is said to have been
made by the appellant on January 25, 1974. It was only subsequent thereto that
the appellant filed his written statement in the suit. It is noteworthy that
one of the principal contentions raised by the appellant-defendant in the
written statement was that since he had stood surety for the landlord for
arrears of sales-tax, there was no default by him in the payment of rent. In
the face of the said plea taken in the written statement, disputing the
existence of any arrears of rent and denying that there had been a default, it
is clear that the deposit, even it was made on the date of the first hearing,
was not an unconditional tender of the amount for payment to the landlord.
Further, there is also nothing on record to show that what was deposited was
the correct amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 20
(4). In these circumstances, we hold that the appellant has failed to establish
that he has complied with the conditions specified in sub-section (4) of
Section 20 and hence he is 337 not entitled to be relieved against his liability
for eviction on the ground set out in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of the said
Section.
This appeal is, therefore, devoid of merits
and is accordingly dismissed. We direct the parties to bear their respective
costs.
N. K. A. Appeal dismissed.
Back