PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRS versus INDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS

PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRS versus INDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS

Because the respondent failed to pay rent month-to-month and did not regularly deposit rent, taxes and interest as required under Sections 20(2)(a), 20(4) and 30 of the UP Rent Act, and because the deposits made were belated and in one lump sum after direction of this Court, the protection under Section 20 was not available; the Trial Court and High Court erred in dismissing the eviction suit and the suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears is decreed.

Parties
Appellant Landlord: Prakash Bhalotia (Deceased) Through His LRs; Respondent Tenant: Indra Chandra Goyal (Deceased) Through LRs
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment (decided by Supreme Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction Suit, Non Payment of Arrears of Rent, Delayed Payment of Rent, Statutory Tenancy, Deposit Under Section 30, Protection Under Section 20(4), Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court
Rent and Eviction Property Law Procedural Law Revisional Jurisdiction Eviction Suit Non Payment of Arrears of Rent Delayed Payment of Rent Statutory Tenancy Deposit Under Section 30 +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prakash Bhalotia (Deceased) Through His LRs

Appellant Landlord

Indra Chandra Goyal (Deceased) Through LRs

Respondent Tenant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment (decided by Supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent-tenant was entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
  2. 2 Whether suit for eviction could be decreed for non-payment of arrears when rent was not deposited regularly or was deposited belatedly in one lump sum
  3. 3 Whether the High Court in revisional jurisdiction was justified in refusing to re-appraise evidence and affirming the Trial Court's dismissal of the eviction suit

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent failed to pay rent month-to-month and did not regularly deposit rent, taxes and interest as required under Sections 20(2)(a), 20(4) and 30 of the UP Rent Act, and because the deposits made were belated and in one lump sum after direction of this Court, the protection under Section 20 was not available; the Trial Court and High Court erred in dismissing the eviction suit and the suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears is decreed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the judgments and orders of the Trial Court dated 22.01.2001 and the High Court dated 31.01.2013
  • Decree the suit filed by the appellant-landlord on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and direct eviction of the respondent from the suit subject property