RANGANATHAN - (1.) THE question which has come up for consideration in this appeal from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court is whether the deposit of rent by a tenant under S. 7-C of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act') as such entitles him to resist successfully eviction under the provisions of the Act on the ground of default in payment of rent.
(2.) THE appellant, Ram Sewak, was a tenant of the respondent, Munna Lal, in respect of a shop on a rent of Rs. 25.00 per month. THE rent up to 30-11-66 had been paid by the tenant. THE landlord, however, claimed that the rent for the period from 1-12-1966 till 28-2-1971, less an amount of Rs. 275.00, which had been received by him by way of money order, was due from the appellant tenant. This remained unpaid despite notices of demand dt. 22-3-71 and 12-4-1971, and a notice of termination of the tenancy dt. 27-4-1971. On these allegations, the landlord instituted a suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. He also claimed the recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and certain taxes, which were alleged to be payable by the tenant. This suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Jhansi. A first appeal was unsuccessful insofar as the decree related to the eviction of the petitioner was concerned but the claim for arrears of rent was rejected in part on the ground of limitation. A second appeal was also dismissed by the High Court and hence the present appeal. The defence of the tenant to the suit was that he had tendered the rent to the plaintiff -landlord but the latter had refused to accept it. The rent was sent by money order but even then it was refused. It was submitted that the tenant had thereupon made an application on 31-7-1967 under S. 7-C of the Act in the court of the learned Munsif, Jhansi, for permission to deposit the rent in the court. The Court issued a notice to the landlord, which was also duly served on him. On the date of hearing there was no appearance on behalf of the landlord. Thereupon the learned Munsif passed an order, on 11-11-1967, permitting the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as well as future rent in Court. It was claimed that the tenant had deposited arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 200.00 for the period from 1-12-1966 to 31-7-67 in the court along with application and that he continued to deposit in court the rent thereafter from month to month. It was, therefore, submitted that there were no arrears of rent due from the tenant to the landlord and that, therefore, the suit for eviction was not maintainable. The learned Munsif and, on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge found as a fact that the plaintiff (defendant) had failed to prove that he had tendered the rent to the landlord or that the latter had refused to accept it. This being so, they held, the statutory conditions requisite for a valid deposit under S. 7-C were not fulfilled. Neither the application made by the plaintiff under S. 7C nor the order passed by the learned Munsif on 11-11-67 could therefore, help the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, both the courts held that the default in payment of rent, within the meaning of S. 3(l)(a) of the Act, stood established and the plaintiff was, therefore, liable to eviction. Before us, as before the Courts below, learned counsel for the tenant based his case solely on the order under the provisions of S. 7C of the Act. That section reads as follows : "7-C - Payment by Deposit of Rent- (1) When a landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by a tenant in respect of any accommodation the tenant may in the prescribed manner deposit such rent and continue to deposit any subsequent rent which becomes due in respect of such accommodation unless the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept. (2) Where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent referred to in sub-sec. (1) in respect of any accommodation, the tenant may similarly 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 the settlement between the parties, continue to deposit, in like manner, the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building. (3) The deposit referred to in sub-sec. (1) or (2) shall be made in the Court of the Munsif having jurisdiction in the area where the accommodation is situate. (4) On any deposit being made under sub-sec. (1) the Court shall cause a notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord, and the amount of deposit may be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Court in this behalf. (5) When a deposit has been made under sub-sec. (2) the amount of the deposit shall be held by the Court for the benefit of the person who may be entitled to it and the same shall be payable to such person. (6) In any case where a deposit has been made, as aforesaid, it shall be deemed that the rent has been duly paid by the tenant to the landlord." Learned counsel submitted that, in the event of a landlord's refusal to accept the rent, the tenant had no other alternative but to deposit the same in the court under the above special provision. It was open to the landlord to have appeared before the learned Munsif at the time of hearing of the application for deposit and put forward any pleas, which he might have had. The landlord not having done this. it was claimed that the order passed by the learned Munsif on 11-11-l967 provides a complete defence to the action under S. 3 (l)(a) of the Act against the tenant particularly in view of the language of sub-sec. (6) of S. 7C. It was contended that the statute should not be construed as requiring that a tenant should prove the fact of his having tendered the rent and the landlord having refused it twice over, once while making a deposit under S. 7C and, again, in proceedings under S. 3(l)(a). If, despite a deposit under S. 7-C, an action under S. 3(l)(a) were to be permitted, it was urged S. 7-C would be rendered nugatory and otiose. Learned counsel also made a point that though the landlord in this case had knowledge that the rent was being deposited in court since August 1967, he chose to keep quiet for a period of four years before issuing a notice calling upon the appellant to pay the arrears of rent.
(3.) PRIMA facie, the arguments of the appellant appear to have some force. However, after hearing learned Counsel for the respondent and considering the facts of this case and the relevant statutory provisions, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal must fail both on technicalities as well as on equities. S. 7C is no doubt a provision intended to protect the interests of the tenant. But there is the authority of this court holding that the mere fact of a deposit under this Section, in itself cannot be an answer to an action u/s. 3(l)(a). In Brahmanand v. Kaushalya Devi, (1977) 3 SCC 1 : (AIR 1977 SC 1198), the relations between the landlord and tenant were highly strained. The tenant therefore deposited the moneys into court and pleaded this as a defence to an action u/s. 3(l)(a). The High Court rejected this plea on the ground that there was nothing to show that the tenant had tendered the rent physically to the landlord and so the deposit could not be treated as a valid deposit u/s. 7C (1) so as to attract the deeming effect in S. 7C(6). This Court held that the High Court had taken too narrow a view of the words 'paid to' the landlord. Krishna lyer, J. observed : "a liberal construction of the expression 'paid to him by a tenant' in S. 7-C(l) is necessary. Physically offering payment when the relations between the parties are strained is to ask for trouble and be impractical. But harassing the landlord by straightway depositing the rent in Court without fulfilment of the conditions required by S. 7C(l) is also unwarranted. S. 7-C(6) by using the expression 'where the deposit has been made as aforesaid' takes us back to S. 7-C (1). That is to say the deposit is permissible only when the condition in S. 7-C(l) is complied with. If the landlord refuses to accept rent paid to him a deposit is permissible. But payment need not be by physical tender, person to person. It can be by money order, or through messenger or by sending a notice to the landlord asking him to nominate a bank into which the rents may be regularly paid to the credit of the landlord. If the landlord refuses under these circumstances, then a Court deposit will be the remedy. In the present case, on account of the bad blood between the parties a physical tender of the rent is ruled out. At the same time the Courts below have not considered whether the circumstances which drove the appellant into depositing the rent in Court were such as eliminated the other possibilities of direct payment we have indicated. It is therefore fair to set aside the finding of the Courts below and remand the case to the lower appellate Court (which is the final court of fact under ordinary circumstances) to ascertain whether any of the alternatives we have indicated, or may otherwise be made out by the tenant as equivalent to payment of rent, is present in the case. If no such circumstance is made out by the tenant justifying deposit of rent in Court, the decree for eviction will stand. Otherwise, the petition for eviction will be dismissed." It is important to note that this Court did not view the deposit u/s. 7C as conclusive of the issue. On the other hand, it held that if no circumstance was made out by the tenant justifying the deposit in Court, the decree for eviction will stand. In other words, this Court took the view that, irrespective of the fact of deposit u/s. 7C, the tenant has to show, when a suit is u /s. 3(1)(a), the existence of circumstances justifying a deposit u/s. 7C. In the present case, the Courts have concurrently found that there was no valid tender of rent by the tenant or refusal thereof by the landlord. There is no ground, therefore to interfere with the decision of the Courts below. ;