Supreme Court of India
Meera Devi (D) Thr. Lr vs Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) Thr. Lrs on 19 September, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, J.K. Maheshwari
2024 INSC 725
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5577 OF 2014
MEERA DEVI (D) THR. LR. … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
DINESH CHANDRA JOSHI (D) THR. LRS. …Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The landlady is in appeal before this Court impugning
the judgment of the High Court1 passed in Writ Petition2 filed by
the respondent-tenant. The challenge in the Writ Petition was
against the common judgment dated 12.05.2006 passed by
Additional District Judge, Jhansi in SCC Revision No. 40 of 2003
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2024.09.23
17:55:36 IST
Reason:
1 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 Writ – A No. 30694 of 2006
Page 1 of 8
and SCC Revision No. 47 of 2003, filed by the respondent-
tenant and appellant-landlady, respectively.
2. As is evident from a perusal of the orders passed in
the case in hand, eviction of the respondent-tenant was sought
by the appellant-landlady on the ground of non-payment of
rent. The Eviction Suit3 was filed by the appellant-landlady
claiming that she is the owner of the House No. 129 situated at
Laxmi Gate, Jhansi where the respondent-tenant, now
represented through legal representatives, was inducted as a
tenant on monthly rent of ₹5.26. The allegation was that the
respondent-tenant had not paid the rent since 14.09.1991. The
appellant-landlady got the notice 4 under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 served on respondent-tenant on
15.11.1997 but no rent was paid till 15.12.1997. It was at this
stage that the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of
the respondent-tenant was filed.
2.1 The Trial Court decreed the suit directing the
respondent-tenant to handover vacant possession of the
property in question to the appellant-landlady within one month
3 SCC Suit No. 107 of 1997
4 Dated 11.11.1997
Page 2 of 8
besides payment of compensation at the rate of ₹50/- per
month from the date of filing of the suit.
2.2 Aggrieved, against the judgment passed by the Trial
Court, both the parties preferred separate revisions before the
Additional District Judge, Jhansi. The grievance of the
appellant-landlady was against the part of the Trial Court
judgment holding the deposit of rent made by the respondent-
tenant under Section 30(2) 5 of the Act as valid, whereas the
respondent-tenant had challenged the judgment of the Trial
Court against the direction of eviction of respondent-tenant
from the property in question along with compensation.
3. The revision filed by the respondent-tenant was
partially allowed only to the extent that the rate of damages as
fixed by the Trial Court was reduced from ₹50 to ₹5.26 per
month. Whereas the revision filed by the appellant-landlady
was allowed holding that the deposit of arrears of rent by the
respondent-tenant under Section 30(2) of the 1972 Act was not
valid. The respondent-tenant challenged the aforesaid common
judgment passed by the Revisional Court before the High Court
5 The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
[U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972]
Page 3 of 8
by filing Writ Petition bearing Writ-A No. 30694 of 2006. The
same was allowed by the High Court. As a consequence, the
suit filed by the appellant-landlady was dismissed.
4. Admittedly, Moti Lal was the owner of the property in
question. Son of Moti Lal, i.e., Ram Sevak had predeceased him
and when Moti Lal died intestate on 08.02.1982, his widow
Gomti Bai and Meera Devi, his daughter-in-law (widow of Ram
Sevak), inherited the property in question. One Pramod Kumar
Pandey staked his claim in the property in question through an
unregistered Will6 allegedly made by Late Moti Lal in his favour.
Gomti Bai and Meera Devi filed a suit 7 seeking declaration that
the unregistered Will is fake, illegal and void, and Pramod
Kumar Pandey has no right on the basis of the said Will in the
property in question. The suit was decreed in favour of Gomti
Bai and Meera Devi whereby the Court pronounced that Late
Moti Lal died intestate on 08.02.1982 leaving behind Gomti Bai
and Meera Devi as his legal heirs, and the alleged unregistered
Will is forged, fabricated, illegal and void, and Pramod Kumar
Pandey does not have any right in the property in question.
Consequently, Gomti Bai and Meera Devi became owners of the
6 Dated 04.02.1982
7 Original Suit No. 278 of 1986
Page 4 of 8
property in question. So, ownership of the appellant-landlady is
not in dispute.
5. A perusal of the paperbook shows that notice was
issued on 02.01.2014 in the Special Leave Petition 8. Vide order
dated 02.05.2014, leave was granted and a perusal of the
same order shows that during the pendency of the appeal the
respondent-tenant was directed to pay rent at the rate of
₹4,000/- per month. The basis therefor was that during the
pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court, an interim
order9 was passed directing the respondent-tenant to pay the
rent at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month. The said order was
challenged before this Court and upheld vide order dated
11.12.2006 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19859 of
2006.
6. The order dated 02.05.2014 is extracted below :
“Leave granted.
We notice that by order dated
18.10.2006, the Allahabad High Court had
directed the respondent to pay rent at the
rate of ₹4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only)8 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24655 of 2012
9 Dated 18.10.2006Page 5 of 8
per month. The said order was carried in
appeal to this Court and this Court vide order
dated 11.12.2006 dismissed the special leave
petition.
We, therefore, direct the respondent to
pay rent at the rate of ₹4,000/- per month to
the petitioner during the pendency of this
appeal.”
7. When the matter was taken up before this Court for
final disposal, Shobha Devi Tripathi, daughter and legal
representative of Late Meera Devi, filed an affidavit dated
21.02.2024. In paragraph 3 thereof, it has been specifically
mentioned that though initially the respondent-tenant paid the
amount fixed by this Court but he has not paid the same from
March 2017 onwards. Even though the original respondent-
tenant has expired, his legal representatives who are on record,
are also neither paying the rent fixed by this Court nor handing
over the vacant possession of the property in question to the
appellant-landlady.
8. In reply to the aforesaid affidavit, no response was
filed by the respondent-tenant, thereby the averments of
affidavit remained undisputed that from March 2017 onwards,
Page 6 of 8
the respondent-tenant has not paid the rent till date thereby
failing to comply with the order dated 02.05.2014. Hence, the
statement of default in compliance of order passed by this
Court remains uncontroverted.
9. In any rent proceeding, the Courts can always take
the subsequent facts into consideration, which may be
relevant. Here is a case where the respondent-tenant has failed
to comply with the interim order passed by this Court regarding
payment of rent during the pendency of the appeal before this
Court, and hence, is in default. In any proceeding of eviction of
tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, he is not only
bound to offer the arrears of rent on account of non-payment of
which eviction is sought for but also to pay the future rent
regularly, either at the amount agreed between the parties or
as fixed by the Court. Even on failure to pay the rent during the
pendency of the litigation also the tenant is bound to be
evicted.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the
view that the case falls in that category where the respondent-
tenant has failed to comply with the order passed by this Court
Page 7 of 8
dated 02.05.2014, directing payment of rent at the rate of
₹4,000/- per month, from March 2017 onwards. Hence, the
respondent-tenant, who is now represented through his legal
representatives/heirs, is directed to be evicted forthwith. The
present appeal is accordingly allowed setting aside the
judgment of the High Court. However, it is made clear that the
appellant-landlady shall have right to recover the arrears of
rent from the respondent-tenant as determined by this Court
for the period of default by initiating appropriate proceedings, if
so advised.
……………….……………..J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
New Delhi
September 19, 2024.
Page 8 of 8