Date of the Judgment: March 1, 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5981 of 2014
Judges: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Aravind Kumar
Can a tenant be evicted for a minor discrepancy in the claimed rent amount, even after depositing the full arrears as demanded by the landlord? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Court held that a tenant who deposits the full amount of rent arrears, interest, and costs of the suit before the first hearing, is entitled to protection from eviction, even if there is a dispute about the exact rent amount. This judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Aravind Kumar.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute between Shanti Prasad (the tenant/appellant) and Thakur Dass (the landlord/respondent). The landlord initiated a suit for recovery of rent arrears and eviction against the tenant. The landlord claimed that the tenant had defaulted on rent payments and made unauthorized alterations to the property. The trial court initially ruled against the tenant on most issues, except for the issue of material alterations, and ordered his eviction. The tenant then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which upheld the trial court’s decision. The tenant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Unknown | Tenancy established between Shanti Prasad and Thakur Dass. |
| Unknown | Landlord files a suit for recovery of rent arrears and eviction against the tenant. |
| October 21, 1978 | Tenant deposits Rs. 8910 towards arrears of rent, interest, and costs of the suit. |
| October 3, 1981 | Trial court decrees the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit and ejectment. |
| November 11, 2010 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismisses the Civil Revision filed by the tenant. |
| March 1, 2023 | Supreme Court allows the appeal, setting aside the eviction order. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court initially ruled against the tenant, ordering his eviction. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the trial court’s decision. The tenant then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the eviction order.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), which provides protection to tenants against eviction if they deposit the full amount of rent arrears, interest, and costs of the suit on the first date of hearing. The relevant portion of the provision is not quoted verbatim in the source document.
Arguments
The appellant argued that he had deposited Rs. 8910 towards arrears of rent, interest, and costs of the suit before the first date of hearing, as evidenced by his application dated October 21, 1978. The appellant contended that the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act should not be denied to him solely because he claimed the rent was Rs. 45 per month, while the court found it to be Rs. 150 per month. The appellant argued that the deposit was made as per the landlord’s claim in the plaint and was not conditional.
The respondent did not appear before the Supreme Court.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant/Tenant: Entitlement to protection against eviction under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act |
|
| Respondent/Landlord: No submissions recorded |
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The tenant’s argument was innovative in that it challenged the interpretation of “unconditional deposit” by the lower courts. The tenant argued that the deposit was not conditional simply because he claimed a different rent amount than what was ultimately determined by the court.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The core issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the tenant was entitled to protection against eviction under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act, given that he had deposited the required amount before the first date of hearing, despite a discrepancy in the claimed rent amount.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the tenant was entitled to protection against eviction under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act, given that he had deposited the required amount before the first date of hearing, despite a discrepancy in the claimed rent amount. | The Court held that the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act. The Court stated that the deposit was made as per the landlord’s claim in the plaint and was not conditional. The discrepancy in the claimed rent amount should not disqualify the tenant from the protection under Section 20(4). |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:
- Vijay Laxmi Gangal v. Mahendra Pratap Garg [(1985) 3 SCC 364 : AIR 1986 SC 753] – The Supreme Court of India held that the U.P. Act is a social piece of legislation that leans in favor of tenants. The Court stated that the discretionary relief under Section 20(4) should not be denied to the tenant if he has deposited the rent at the rate claimed by the landlord in the plaint, along with interest and costs, within the time mentioned in the Section, even if the tenant fails to prove his case regarding the quantum of rent.
| Authority | How the Authority was Considered |
|---|---|
| Vijay Laxmi Gangal v. Mahendra Pratap Garg [(1985) 3 SCC 364 : AIR 1986 SC 753] – Supreme Court of India | Followed. The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the U.P. Act is a social legislation favoring tenants and that the benefit of Section 20(4) should not be denied for minor discrepancies in rent claims. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant/Tenant: Deposit of Rs. 8910 made before the first date of hearing entitles him to protection under Section 20(4). | Accepted. The Court agreed that the deposit was made as per the landlord’s claim and was not conditional. |
| Appellant/Tenant: Discrepancy in the claimed rent amount should not disqualify the tenant from the benefit of Section 20(4). | Accepted. The Court held that the benefit of Section 20(4) should not be denied solely on the ground of the discrepancy in the rent amount. |
| Respondent/Landlord: No submissions recorded. | Not applicable. The respondent did not appear before the Supreme Court. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Supreme Court relied on Vijay Laxmi Gangal v. Mahendra Pratap Garg [(1985) 3 SCC 364 : AIR 1986 SC 753]* to support its decision. The court cited the case to emphasize that the U.P. Act is a social legislation favoring tenants. The court further stated that the discretionary relief under Section 20(4) should not be denied to the tenant if he has deposited the rent at the rate claimed by the landlord in the plaint, along with interest and costs, within the time mentioned in the Section, even if the tenant fails to prove his case regarding the quantum of rent.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the social nature of the U.P. Act, which is designed to protect tenants. The Court also focused on the fact that the tenant had deposited the full amount demanded by the landlord before the first date of hearing. The discrepancy in the claimed rent amount was considered a minor issue that should not deprive the tenant of the protection under Section 20(4).
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Social nature of the U.P. Act | 40% |
| Deposit of full amount before first hearing | 40% |
| Minor discrepancy in rent claim | 20% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the U.P. Act is a social legislation designed to protect tenants. The Court reasoned that the tenant had complied with the requirements of Section 20(4) by depositing the full amount demanded by the landlord before the first date of hearing. The Court further stated that the discrepancy in the claimed rent amount was a minor issue that should not deprive the tenant of the protection under Section 20(4).
The Court considered the interpretation of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act and the social nature of the legislation. The Court rejected the argument that the discrepancy in the claimed rent amount should disqualify the tenant from the protection under Section 20(4). The Court concluded that the tenant had complied with the requirements of the section by depositing the full amount demanded by the landlord before the first date of hearing. The Court held that the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act. The Court stated, “It is not possible to lay down any broad and general proposition that the discretionary relief should be denied to the tenant in all cases where he fails to prove his case regarding the quantum of rent even though he had deposited the rent at the rate claimed by the landlord in the plaint together with interest and costs within the time as required by Section 20(4) of the Act.” The Court further stated, “We find that the trial court framed Issue No.6 as regards entitlement of the defendant/appellant to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20. While returning a finding on Issue No.6, though the trial court accepted that an amount of Rs.8910/- towards arrears of rent, interest and costs of the suit was deposited by the defendant/tenant before filing the written statement but held the said deposit not unconditional as in the written statement, the defendant pleaded the rate of rent as Rs.45/- per month, which, ultimately, was found to be Rs.150/- per month.” The Court also noted, “What is important is that the trial court recorded no finding that the amount deposited was short of the requisite amount or that it was not by or before the first date of hearing in the suit.”
There was no minority opinion in this case.
The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act should not be denied to a tenant for minor discrepancies in rent claims, provided that the tenant has deposited the full amount demanded by the landlord before the first date of hearing. This decision has significant implications for future cases involving similar disputes, as it emphasizes the social nature of the U.P. Act and the protection it provides to tenants.
Key Takeaways
- Tenants who deposit the full amount of rent arrears, interest, and costs of the suit before the first date of hearing are entitled to protection from eviction under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act.
- Minor discrepancies in the claimed rent amount should not disqualify a tenant from the benefit of Section 20(4), provided the deposit is made as per the landlord’s claim in the plaint.
- The U.P. Act is a social piece of legislation that leans in favor of tenants.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the eviction order passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The remaining part of the decree of the trial court was maintained.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a tenant who deposits the full amount of rent arrears, interest, and costs of the suit before the first date of hearing as demanded by the landlord is entitled to protection from eviction under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act, even if there is a minor discrepancy in the claimed rent amount. This decision reinforces the social nature of the U.P. Act and its intention to protect tenants.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Shanti Prasad vs. Thakur Dass reinforces the protection afforded to tenants under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Court held that a tenant cannot be evicted for a minor discrepancy in the claimed rent amount, if the full amount of rent arrears, interest, and costs of the suit were deposited before the first date of hearing. This judgment emphasizes the social nature of the legislation and its intention to protect tenants from eviction.
Category
Parent Category: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
Child Category: Section 20(4), Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
FAQ
Q: What is Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972?
A: Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is a provision that provides protection to tenants against eviction if they deposit the full amount of rent arrears, interest, and costs of the suit before the first date of hearing.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in Shanti Prasad vs. Thakur Dass?
A: The Supreme Court held that a tenant who deposits the full amount of rent arrears, interest, and costs of the suit before the first date of hearing is entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act, even if there is a minor discrepancy in the claimed rent amount.
Q: What does this mean for tenants in Uttar Pradesh?
A: This decision means that tenants in Uttar Pradesh who are facing eviction for non-payment of rent can be protected if they deposit the full amount demanded by the landlord before the first date of hearing, even if there is a dispute about the exact rent amount. This emphasizes the social nature of the U.P. Act and its intention to protect tenants.
Q: What is the significance of the Vijay Laxmi Gangal case in this judgment?
A: The Supreme Court relied on the Vijay Laxmi Gangal case to emphasize that the U.P. Act is a social legislation favoring tenants and that the benefit of Section 20(4) should not be denied for minor discrepancies in rent claims, provided the deposit is made as per the landlord’s claim in the plaint.
Source: Shanti Prasad vs. Thakur Dass