MAN SINGH versus SHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS

MAN SINGH versus SHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS

Where a landlord who had earlier refused to accept rent subsequently serves a notice of demand expressing willingness to accept it, the tenant must tender the rent to the landlord and cannot continue to deposit it in Court under Section 30(1); failure to tender the rent to the landlord after such notice may justify eviction even if the tenant had been depositing the admitted rent in Court. On the facts, although the High Court found the oral enhancement unproved and fixed the rent at Rs.250 per month, the tenant failed to tender that rent to the landlord after notice and the eviction decree was therefore upheld.

Parties
Appellant Tenant: Man Singh; Respondent Landlord (through Legal Representatives): Shamim Ahmed (dead) through LRs
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal to the Supreme Court (civil Appeal No.1874 of 2015) / Appeal Against High Court Judgment Dated 17.02.2012 Upholding Decree of Eviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; impugned order of the High Court dated 17.02.2012 upheld; decree of eviction maintained.
Legal Topics
Deposit of Rent in Court, Notice of Demand, Section 30 Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act 1972, Section 20(4) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act 1972, Oral Agreement for Enhancement of Rent, Effect of Deposit in Court on Arrears
Landlord and Tenant Rent Control Eviction Statutory Interpretation Deposit of Rent in Court Notice of Demand Section 30 Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act 1972 Section 20(4) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act 1972 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Man Singh

Appellant Tenant

Shamim Ahmed (dead) through LRs

Respondent Landlord (through Legal Representatives)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal to the Supreme Court (civil Appeal No.1874 of 2015) / Appeal Against High Court Judgment Dated 17.02.2012 Upholding Decree of Eviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tenant who has been depositing admitted rent in Court under Section 30 can continue to do so after the landlord serves a notice of demand expressing willingness to accept rent
  2. 2 Whether deposit of admitted rent in Court under Section 30 satisfies the requirements of Section 20(4) to avoid eviction when landlord has served notice
  3. 3 Whether alleged oral agreement for periodic enhancement of rent was proved

Ratio Decidendi

Where a landlord who had earlier refused to accept rent subsequently serves a notice of demand expressing willingness to accept it, the tenant must tender the rent to the landlord and cannot continue to deposit it in Court under Section 30(1); failure to tender the rent to the landlord after such notice may justify eviction even if the tenant had been depositing the admitted rent in Court. On the facts, although the High Court found the oral enhancement unproved and fixed the rent at Rs.250 per month, the tenant failed to tender that rent to the landlord after notice and the eviction decree was therefore upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; impugned order of the High Court dated 17.02.2012 upheld; decree of eviction maintained.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2012 of the Allahabad High Court upheld