RAM SEWAK versus MUNNA LAL

RAM SEWAK versus MUNNA LAL

The mere deposit of rent under section 7C of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 is not sufficient to defeat an eviction suit for default under section 3(1)(a). The tenant must prove valid circumstances justifying deposit, like landlord's refusal to accept rent. In this case, courts below found no valid tender or refusal; application for deposit lacked details and enquiry. Thus, statutory requisites for valid deposit were not fulfilled and tenant was liable to eviction.

Parties
Appellant Tenant: Ram Sewak; Respondent Landlord: Munna Lal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 December 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Default in Payment of Rent, Deposit of Rent in Court, Uttar Pradesh (temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act
Landlord Tenant Rent Control Eviction Default in Payment of Rent Deposit of Rent in Court Uttar Pradesh (temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Sewak

Appellant Tenant

Munna Lal

Respondent Landlord

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deposit of rent by a tenant under section 7-C of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 entitles him to resist eviction for default in payment of rent
  2. 2 Whether the statutory conditions for a valid deposit under section 7C were fulfilled
  3. 3 Whether mere deposit is a valid defence to suit under section 3(1)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The mere deposit of rent under section 7C of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 is not sufficient to defeat an eviction suit for default under section 3(1)(a). The tenant must prove valid circumstances justifying deposit, like landlord's refusal to accept rent. In this case, courts below found no valid tender or refusal; application for deposit lacked details and enquiry. Thus, statutory requisites for valid deposit were not fulfilled and tenant was liable to eviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Ejectment suit properly decreed by courts below
  • No order as to costs