BRIJ BHUSHAN versus KEWAL KUMAR

BRIJ BHUSHAN versus KEWAL KUMAR

The requirement to deposit or tender interest and costs applies under the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) and cannot be imported into Section 6A. A deposit made by the tenant under Section 6A is valid even if it does not initially include interest and cost. Since the tenant subsequently tendered the required amounts under Section 13(2)(i), the application for eviction had no merit and was rightly dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Brij Bhushan; Respondent: Kewal Kumar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deposit of Rent, Eviction, Statutory Interpretation
Rent Control Property Law Deposit of Rent Eviction Statutory Interpretation

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brij Bhushan

Appellant

Kewal Kumar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deposit of rent by the tenant under Section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was a valid tender despite not including interest and cost at the initial stage
  2. 2 Whether the provisions of Section 13(2)(i) proviso regarding interest and cost are to be imported into Section 6A proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement to deposit or tender interest and costs applies under the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) and cannot be imported into Section 6A. A deposit made by the tenant under Section 6A is valid even if it does not initially include interest and cost. Since the tenant subsequently tendered the required amounts under Section 13(2)(i), the application for eviction had no merit and was rightly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No costs awarded
  • Order of the High Court and appellate authority affirmed, dismissing landlord's application for eviction