FAKIR MOHD. (DEAD) BY LRS. versus SITA RAM

FAKIR MOHD. (DEAD) BY LRS. versus SITA RAM

Deposit of rent in court under Section 19A(3)(c) is valid if preceded by either remitting rent by postal money order or notice requiring bank account; however, tenant must prove actual service of notice. In this case, tenant failed to establish valid service of notice under Section 19A(3)(b), so the court deposit...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Fakir Mohd. (Dead) by LRs.; Respondent: Sita Ram
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Rajasthan High Court Judgment and Order Dated 19.5.98
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; decree of eviction sustained.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Rent Deposit, Interpretation of 'and'/'or', Notice Requirements, Presumption of Service
Landlord Tenant Statutory Interpretation Eviction Rent Deposit Interpretation of 'and'/'or' Notice Requirements Presumption of Service

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fakir Mohd. (Dead) by LRs.

Appellant

Sita Ram

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Rajasthan High Court Judgment and Order Dated 19.5.98

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deposits made by the tenant in court under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 constituted valid payment of rent, preventing eviction for default
  2. 2 Whether tenant complied with notice requirements under Section 19A(3)(b)
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'or' and 'and' in Section 19A(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Deposit of rent in court under Section 19A(3)(c) is valid if preceded by either remitting rent by postal money order or notice requiring bank account; however, tenant must prove actual service of notice. In this case, tenant failed to establish valid service of notice under Section 19A(3)(b), so the court deposit was invalid and tenant defaulted, justifying eviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; decree of eviction sustained.

Orders

  • Tenant allowed time till 31.3.2002 to vacate premises, subject to filing usual undertaking to clear arrears of rent within one month, continue to pay rent as due, and hand over vacant possession to landlord.