State of U.P. Through Regional Prohibition and Social Uplift Officer, Allahabad vs Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad and others

S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Nalini Ranjan Srivastava and Durgesh Kumar Srivastava claiming to be landlords of the accommodation in dispute in which petitioner is tenant, instituted suit for eviction against petitioner in the form of SCC Suit No. 11.8 of 1995 before Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad. Eviction was sought on the ground of default alongwith recovery of arrears of rent. Suit was decreed by JSCC, Allahabad on 22.5.1998. Against the said judgment and decree petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 778 of 1998. 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad dismissed the revision on 11.2.1999 hence the writ petition. Accommodation in dispute was. let out to the petitioner in 1957 by Amar Nath Srivastava who was undisputed ownerlandlord of the accommodation in dispute. The rate of rent is Rs. 100/ per month. The following pedigree may be helpful for understanding the devolution and dispute of landlordship:

A.M. Srivastava

Kailash Nath Srivastava died on 9.2.1994

Shalini Ranjan died issueless on 18.6.1992

Nalini Ranjan

Durgesh Kumar

After the death of original landlord A.N. Srivastava, his son Shalini Ranjan became undisputed landlord and realised the rent of, the accommodation in dispute. Shalini Ranjan died unmarried on 18.6.1992. I Thereafter Kailash Nath Srivastava real brother of A.N. Srivastava was paid the rent. K.N. Srivastava died in February/March, 1994. After the death of K.N, Srivastava, one of his sons Nalini Ranjan respondent No. 3 was paid the rent for the month of February 1994 and April to July 1994.

After the death of Shalini Ranjan, the petitioner had started depositing the rent under section 30 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The case was registered as Misc. Case No. 154 (A) of 1993 on the file of Munsif (West), Allahabad. The said case was instituted on 20.5,1993. However, afterward K.N. Srivastava produced a certificate issued by Tehsildar that he was legal heir of late A.N. Srivastava and Shalini Ranjan. Thereafter, rent was paid to K.N. Srivastava. According to the case of the petitioner on 14.9.1994 one Arun Kumar Dwivedi sent a notice to the petitioner intimating that late Shalini Ranjan had executed a will in his favour. Copy of the said notice and will is Annexure5 to the writ petition. It has also been stated that petitioner received two more notices of Arun Kumar Dwivedi, the last one being dated 24.3 1995 copy of which is Annexure6 to the writ petition. A.K. Dwivedi was residing just adjacent to the house in dispute and it is also stated by the petitioner that he had started encroaching upon part of the tenanted property and, a First Information Report was also lodged by the petitioner against Shri Dwivedi on 21.10.1994.

According to the further case of the petitioner after receiving notice from Arun Kumar Dwivedi it started depositing the rent in the old case under section 30 (Misc. Case No. 154 (A) of 1993). Annexure7 contains copies of several tenders through which rent was deposited in proceedings under section 30 of the Act before Munsif and in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition. Suit was filed in October 1995. Rent uptil November 1995 was deposited before Munsif and thereafter w.e.f. February 1996 onward before JSCC in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition. (Subsequently rent for December 1995 and January 1996 was also deposited in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition).

Annexure11 to the writ petition is receipt dated 19.2.1996 of deposit in the suit of Rs. 1,000/ including Rs. 200/ as rent for December 1995 and January 1996 and Rs. 800/ as cost of the suit

Both the Courts below did not believe the version of the tenantpetitioner for the reason that neither the notice of A.K. Dwivedi was filed nor copies of tenders through which rent was deposited before Munsif as well as JSCC were filed. As far as deposit before JSCC is concerned it could very well be verified from the relevant register kept in Nazarath of the District Court regarding the deposits made in Court. Copies of tenders through which rent was deposited under Section 30 of the Act as well as before J.S.C.C. have been filed alongwith writ petition.

I am of the opinion that petitioner deserves one more opportunity to file the original tenders through which rent was deposited by it either under section 30 before Munsif or before the JSCC itself as well as notice sent to it by A.K. Dwivedi.

Section 30 (2) of the Act is quoted below:

"(2) Where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent in respect of any building, the tenant may likewise deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit is made and may, until, such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled, by the decision of any competent Court or by settlement between the parties, continue to deposit the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building."

In the aforesaid provision what is required is a doubt in the mind of the tenant regarding proper landlord. Petitioner is State, if after receiving the notice from Shri Dwivedi it became cautious and started depositing the rent under section 30 then it cannot be said that it did not act bonafidely. If State department is tenant then it will have to be more cautious in payment of rent than a private tenant. Payment to the wrong landlord may put the officer responsible tor making payment of rent in trouble.

However, it will have to be seen as to whether by/on the first date of hearing entire rent had been deposited or not.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and both the impugned judgments, decree of the Trial Court and order of the Revisional Court are set aside. Matter is remanded to the Trial Court which shall decide the suit very expeditiously. Petitioner shall be permitted to file copies of the tenders through which rent has been deposited by it either under section 30 before the Munsif or before JSCC itself and notices given to it by A.K. Dwivedi. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any of the parties. If the Court below is inclined to grant any adjournment to any of the parties, then it shall be on very heavy cost, which shall not be less than Rs. 400/ per adjournment.

Petitioner is permitted to file tenders and notices on payment of Rs. 3,000/ as cost. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court alongwith certified copy of this judgment on 15.5.2008. On the said date the aforesaid cost of Rs. 3,000/ shall be paid to the landlord or deposited in Court for payment to the landlord. On the said date copies of the tenders shall also be filed.

Property in dispute is situate in Allahabad which may be containing two or three rooms. It was let out in 1957 for Rs. 100/ per month. Today its rental value will be several thousand rupees per month.

I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J., 2004 (55) ALR 586 (SC) and H.M. Kichlu v. A.D.J., 2004 (2) ARC 652 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the relief already granted by the Courts below, writ Court is empowered to enhance the, rent to a reasonable extent.

In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I placed reliance upon the Supreme Court authority of M.V. Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 602 where it was held that it was essential to provide for periodical enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Acts. The Supreme Court has further held that frozen rents are giving rise to lawlessness and landlords out of frustration are approaching muscle man to get the premises vacated and Courts of law are becoming redundant in this sphere. Under U.P. Rent Control Act, there is no provision of enhancement of rent after October, 1972 (Except where landlord is public charitable or public religious institution (section 9A) or Government is tenant (section 21 (8)). In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I have also placed reliance upon the authority of Supreme Court in Shangrila food Products Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1996 SC 2410 paragraph 11 of which is quoted below:

"It is wellsettled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court, being extraordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If there be any unfair advantage gained by a party priory, before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court can take into account the unfair advantage gained and can require the party to shed the unfair gain before granting relief."

Thereafter in Para8 of the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), 1 held as under:

"Rent Control Act confers a reasonable advantage upon the tenant of protection against arbitrary eviction. Tenant under the Rent Control Act cannot be evicted except on specific grounds like bona fide need of the landlord, arrears of rent, subletting and material alteration etc. This advantage is also coupled with the advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent. The latter advantage cannot be said to be either reasonable or equitable. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of S.F.P. v. L.I.C, AIR 1996 SC 2410 has laid down that while granting relief to a party the writ Court can very well ask the said party to shed the unfair advantage which it gained under the impugned order. By slightly extending the said doctrine it may safely be held that while granting the reasonable advantage to the tenant conferred upon him by the Rent Control Act the tenant may be asked to shed the unreasonable arbitrary advantage conferred upon him by the said Rent Control Act. The writ Court therefore while granting or maintaining the relief against arbitrary ejectment to the tenant can very well ask the tenant to shed the unreasonable benefit of the Rent Control Act granted to him in the form of immunity against enhancement of rent, however inadequate the rent might be. Tenant will have to shed the undue advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Act to barter his protection from arbitrary eviction provided for by the said Act."

Same formula may be applied while remanding the matter after setting aside eviction orders.

Under interim order dated 31.8.2007 passed in this writ petition tenant is paying rent to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ per month. Accordingly, it is directed that irrespective of the result of the sum rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ per month shall be payable by the tenant to the landlord.