In Mangal Das (deceased) through LRs v. Amar Singh (deceased) through LRs [S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 596 of 2005] the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court observed that the protection granted to tenant from unlawful eviction does not extend to denial of bona fide property to the landlord for all times to come. The respondent (landlord) initiated eviction proceedings against appellant (tenant) under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 on grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting, nuisance, and substantial damages. He pleaded that the default in payment of rent is for a period of more than six months. The tenant denied all grounds of eviction and in relation to default in payment of rent, he stated that rent was paid through money order which the landlord refused to accept and thereafter, the tenant deposited the rent in the court. The court was deciding the following issues:
(i) Whether or not the landlord had any cause of action while filing suit for eviction on ground of default in payment of rent when such rent has been deposited with the court?
(ii) Whether or not the landlord can be estopped from taking recourse to the ground of eviction under section 13(1)(a) of the Act when the parties adopted the practice of paying and accepting the rent on yearly basis.
Whether landlord can be estopped from recourse to ground under Section 13(1)(a) when the practice of payment and acceptance of rent is on a yearly basis?
Scheme of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950
The Jaipur Bench observed that the Act was designed to protect the tenants from eviction at the hands of greedy and unscrupulous landlords. However, it does not mean that landlords can be deprived of their bona fide properties for all times to come. The rent control legislation exists to strike a reasonable balance between the rights of the landlord and the tenant.
The case was argued based on payment of rent by money order. The High court rightly observed that before the trial court, tenants neither produced the refusal coupon of money order nor produced any noticed alleged to be issued to the landlord for asking his bank account details.
Thus, the trial court observed that the mandatory pre-requisites of Section 19(A)(3)(c) & (4) of the Act of 1950 to deposit the rent in court were not complied with. Before the first appellate court, the tenants were allowed to adduce additional evidence by allowing their application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Tenant, in his additional evidence also could not produce the documents to show his remittance of rent through money order. Though, the tenant produced legal notice issued to the landlord to disclose the bank account details but the acknowledgment slip of the postal receipt that the notice had been delivered to the landlord and was received to him, was not produced. The first appellate court also observed that in absence of proof to adopt either of the mode of remittance of rent to the landlord, either by way of postal money order or by way of issuing notice to deposit the rent in the bank account, have not been fulfilled, hence the rent deposited in the court is invalid.
The findings recorded by both courts below, find support with the proposition of law, as expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Fakir Mohd. (Dead) By Lrs vs Sita Ram reported in [(2002) 1 SCC 741]. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it was obligatory on the part of the tenant to prove the service of notice in view of the statement on oath given by the landlord, denying receipt of any such notice. The plea of tenant that since his erstwhile counsel suffered from weakness of eye-sight and could not produce the documents of money order and acknowledgment receipt of registered notice issued to the landlord asking bank account was not believed. The facts of case in hand are clear that neither tenant could prove that before deposition of rent in court under Section 19(A) of the Act of 1950, he remitted the due rent from January, 1983 through postal money order to the landlord nor could show that he sent a notice to landlord asking his bank account details. In such backdrop of factual matrix, the substantial question of law No.(I) does not arise at all in the present case and deserves to be answered in negative.
The rent control legislation was entitled to strike a reasonable balance between the landlord and tenant. At one hand where the tenant requires adequate protection against his eviction at the hands of aggressive designed greedy landlord, at the same time rights of landlord also require protection to increase the rent reasonably and to evict tenant on the grounds permissible in law. The basic object of the Rent Control Act, 1950 is to save the harassment of tenant from unscrupulous landlords. The object of the Rent Control Act, 1950 may not be misconstrued to deprive the landlords of their bona fide properties for all times to come. Rajasthan Rent Control Act 1950 was repealed by 2001 Act.
About the author
EDITOR: Jyoti Srivastava
