Appeal No 203 of 1986 From the Judgment and Order dated 1671985 of the Allahabad High Court in WP No 995 of 1985
Manoj Swaroop and Ms Lalita Kohli for the Appellant
AK Gupta Brij Bhushan Sharma and SK Dhingra for the Respondents
227 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Allaha bad Lucknow Bench dated 16785 dismissing the appellant s petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution chal lenging orders for his eviction from the premises in dis pute
Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs100 of house No 293246 situated in old Haider Ganj of which NN Meithy was the owner and landlord
On Meithy s death his heirs respondents nos
3 to 12 became the owners of the house
It appears that the appellant tendered rent to Prab hat Kumar respondent No 3 but he did not accept the same
The appellant made application before the Munsif under section 301 of the UP Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act
The Munsif permitted the appellant to depos it rent and since then the appellant has been depositing rent in the Munsif s court
The respondent landlords served a notice dated 4882 on the appellant on 9882 through their counsel calling upon him to vacate the premises and hand over possession to them and to pay the arrears with effect from 18101979 to 1791982
The appellant through his Advocate gave a reply to the notice on 6982 stating therein that he was ready and willing to pay the rent and if Prabhat Kumar Meithy respondent No 3 was willing to accept the rent he may inform the appellant within reasona ble time so that he may pay the same to him otherwise he would deposit the rent in the Miscellaneous Case No 5778 in the Munsif s court
The respondentlandlords did not give any reply to the appellant instead they filed suit for eviction
Meanwhile the appellant deposited the entire amount of arrears in Munsif s court on 6101982
The appel lant contested the eviction proceedings before the Judge Small Causes Court on the ground that he was always ready and willing to pay rent and on landlords  refusal he had deposited rent in the court under section 301 of the Act therefore he was not liable to ejectment The Judge Small Causes Court decreed the suit on the findings that the appellant had committed default for a period of four months from the date of suit
The appellant preferred revision before the District Judge which was dismissed on 22285
Thereafter the appellant approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief for quashing the order of the Trial Court as well as Revisional court
A learned single judge of the High Court by his order dt
1671985 dismissed the petition on the finding that the appellant had failed to 228 tender the arrears of rent to the landlord within one month from the date of service of notice on him therefore he was liable to ejectment and the findings recorded by the subor dinate court did not suffer from any legal infirmity
Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the High Court and the courts below failed to appreciate that the appellant had all along been ready and willing to pay the rent to the landlords and in his reply to the notice dated 6982 he had offered to pay the rent on hearing from Prab hat Kumar Meithy respondent No 3
But since the appellant did not receive any reply he deposited the rent in Munsif s court in proceedings taken under section 30 of the Act therefore he was not liable to ejectment
On behalf of the respondent landlords it was urged that all the three courts have recorded findings holding the appellant in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months on the date the suit was instituted therefore the impugned Orders do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court
Having given our anxious consideration to the submis sions made by the counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record and after considering the relevant provisions of the Act we are of the opinion that the High Court as well as the courts below have taken a too technical view in holding the appellant guilty of wilful default in payment of rent
UP Urban Buildings Regulations of Letting Rent  Eviction Act 1972 was enacted as the preamble indicates to provide in the interest of the general public for the regulation of letting and rent and the eviction of tenants from certain classes of buildings situate in urban areas and for matters connected therewith
Section 4 imposes prohibition on a landlord to take or receive for admitting a tenant to any building any premium or additional payment over and above the rent payable by him
Sections 8 and 9 provided for determination of standard rent in the absence of any agreement between the tenant and the landlord
Sec tion 11 curtails right of a landlord to induct any tenant in a building in pursuance of an allotment order issued under sec
Section 16 provides for allotment of building which may have fallen vacant or is about to fail vacant or a part thereof to the landlord if he bonafide requires the same
Section 201 prohibits institution of a suit by landlord for eviction of a tenant except on the grounds specified under sub sec
Section 202a permits filing of a suit by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant after determination of his tenancy if the tenant is in arrear of rent for a period of not less than four months and he has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month 229 from the date of service upon him a notice of demand
When the tenant fails to pay arrears of rent within one month from the date of service of notice of demand the landlord is entitled to obtain decree of eviction but the legislature has provided another opportunity to the tenant to relieve himself from the liability of eviction
Section 204 safe guards tenants from eviction if on the first date of hearing of the suit he unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building together with inter est thereon  9 and the landlords  costs of the suit in respect thereof after deducting therefrom any amount depos ited by him under sub sec
1 of sec
If that is done the Court is bound to pass orders relieving the tenant from liability of eviction
Legislative policy to protect the tenant from eviction is further evidenced from sec
39 and 40
Section 39 protects a tenant from eviction it lays down that if a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent was pending on the date of com mencement of the Act no decree for eviction shall be passed if the tenant deposited arrears of rent within one month from the date of commencement of the Act
Section 40 also protects tenants from eviction in similar circumstances even at the stage of the pendency of appeal or revision
Section 30 of the Act lays down that if a dispute or difference arises as to the entitlement of landlord to receive rent the tenant may deposit rent in the prescribed manner and continue to do so in the Munsif s court until the landlord signifies in writing his readiness and willingness to accept the rent and if the landlord does not accept the rent it is open to the tenant to deposit the rent in Munsif s court
Once deposit is made under sub sec
1 the court shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord and the amount so deposited may be withdrawn by him on an appli cation made by him to the court
Section 306 declares that if deposit is made under sub sec
1 or under sub sec
3 of the Act in Munsif s court it shall be deemed that the tenant has paid the rent to the landlord
The deeming provi sion stipulates that if the tenant is permitted to deposit rent in court it will amount to payment of rent to the landlord and no decree for eviction of tenant can legally be passed on the ground of arrears of rent
The Scheme and structure and the policy discernible from the provisions of the Act as discussed unmistakably aim at regulating the conditions of tenancy rent and pre venting eviction of tenants
The legislature has taken care to make special provisions protecting the interest of ten ants from eviction while placing obligation on him to pay rent
The right of a tenant not to be evicted and the prohi bition against a landlord from seeking eviction except upon specified grounds are 230 well protected by the provisions of the Act and the tenant is afforded opportunity to pay arrears of rent even after filing of the suit and in some cases even after a decree of eviction is passed
The special provisions as contained in secs
304 30 39 and 40 indicate the legislative policy to safeguard the interest of a tenant who he depos its rent in accordance with those provisions
The court must strive to so interpret the statute as to protect and advance the object and purpose of the enactment
Any narrow or technical interpretation of the provisions would defeat the legislative policy
The courts must therefore keep the legislative policy in mind in applying the provisions of the act to facts of each case
In the instant case on the death of NN Meithy the original landlord eight different persons respondents nos
3 to 12 succeeded to him
The appellant was in doubt as to which of them was entitled to receive rent he made an attempt to tender rent to Prabhat Kumar respondent No 3 but he refused to accept the same thereupon the appellant made an application under sec
301 in the Munsif s court and on the permission being granted to him he continued to deposit rent in that court
It is true that on service of the landlord s notice of demand on 8982 the appellant did not tender the amount to the respondents instead he gave a reply on 6982 stating therein that he was willing to pay the rent to the landlord Prabhat Kumar respondent No 3 if he expressed his willingness in writing to accept the same
The appellant s insistence in requesting Prabhat Kumar to signify his willingness in writing appears to be founded on the provision of sec
301 of the Act
It is noteworthy that in his notice dt
6982 the appellant had clearly stated that he was ready and willing to pay the rent to Prabhat Kumar if he signified his willingness in writing to accept the rent within a reasonable time otherwise he would deposit the same in the Munsif s court in Misc
Case No 57 of 1978
Admittedly the appellant s notice dt
6982 was served on the respondent landlords but no reply was sent to the appellant instead they filed suit for his eviction
Since no reply was received by the appellant from the land lords he deposited the arrears of rent in the Munsif s court in Misc
Case No 5778
In the face of these facts and circumstances it would be unjust to hold the appellant in arrears of rent rendering him liable to eviction
It is true that on landlord s serving notice of demand on a tenant who may be in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months and on the tenant s failure to tender the rent to the landlord within one month from the service of the notice the tenant is liable to eviction but in the instant case having regard to the special facts and circumstances available on the record we do not find that the appellant failed to tender the 231 rent to the landlords or that he was in arrear for a period of more than four months
He was all along ready to pay and since the landlords did not give any reply to his notice dt
6982 he was justified in depositing the arrear in the Munsif s court
Since the deposit was made it must be deemed that the appellant had tendered rent to the landlords as contemplated by sec
136 of the Act
In this view the High Court as well as the courts below committed error in holding that the appellant had failed to pay arrears of rent for a period of more than four months and on that ground he was liable to ejectment from the premises in dispute
We should not be understood to have laid down that the tenant should deposit rent in court instead of paying the same to the landlord
Primarily a tenant is under a legal obligation to pay rent to the landlord as and when due and if he fails to pay the same on demand from the landlord and if he is in arrears for a period of more than four months he would be liable to ejectment
Where there is a bonafide dispute regarding the landlord s right to receive rent on account of there being several claimants or if the landlord refuses to accept the rent without there being any justifi cation for the same the tenant would be entitled to take proceeding under sec
30 of the Act and deposit the rent in court thereupon he would be deemed to have paid the rent to the landlord consequently he would be relieved of his liability of eviction
It does not however follow that the tenant is entitled to disregard the landlord or ignore his demand for payment of rent to him
The provisions of the Act safeguard tenant s interest but it must be kept in mind that the landlord s right to receive rent and in the event of the tenant s being in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months his right to evict the tenant is preserved
If the tenant makes the deposit in court without there being any justification for the same or if he refuses to pay the rent even on the service of notice of demand by the land lord he would be liable to eviction
However the question whether the tenant is justified in depositing the rent in court and whether deeming provision of section 306 would be available him to relieve him from the liability of eviction would depend upon facts of each case
As noted earlier on the special facts of the instant case we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant had relieved himself from the liability of eviction and he was not in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months
We accordingly allow the appeal set aside the orders of the High Court and the subordinate courts and dismiss the respondent landlords  suit
In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs
APJ Appeal allowed


Summary:
On the death of the owner landlord of the tenanted premises his heirs respondents Nos 3 to 12 became the owners
The appellanttenant tendered rent to respondent No 3 but he did not accept the same
The appellant made appli cation before the Munsif under section 301 of the UP Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent  Eviction Act 1972 who permitted deposit of the rent and since then the appellant had been depositing rent in the Munsif s Court
The respondentlandlords served a notice on the appellant calling upon him to vacate the premises hand over posses sion and pay the arrears of rents from 18101979 to 1791982
In his reply the appellant stated that he was ready and willing to pay the rent and if respondent No 3 was willing to accept the rent he may inform him within reasonable time so that he may pay the same to him otherwise he would deposit the rent in the Munsif s Court
The re spondent landlords did not give any reply to the appellant instead they filed suit for his eviction
Meanwhile the appellant deposited the entire amount of arrears in Munsif s Court
The Judge Small Causes Court decreed the suit holding that the appellant had committed default for a period of four months from the date of suit
The revision filed by the appellant was dismissed by the District Judge
The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant under Article 226 holding that the appellant had failed to tender arrears of rent within one month from the date of service of notice on him and therefore he was liable to ejectment
In appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant tenant it was urged that the courts below failed to appre ciate that the appellant had all along been ready and willing to pay the rent to the landlords and in the reply to the notice he had offered to pay rent on hearing from re spondent No 3 but since the appellant did not receive any reply he 225 deposited the rent in Munsils Court under s30 and there fore he was not liable to ejectment
On behalf of the respondent landlords it was urged that all the three Courts have recorded findings holding the appellant in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months on the date of the suit therefore the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court
Allowing the appeal of the appellant tenant HELD 1
The High Court as well as the Courts below have taken a too technical view in holding the appellant guilty of wilful default in payment of rent
230B 2
The High Court as well as the Courts below have committed error in holding that the appellant had failed to pay ar rears of rent for a period of more than four months and on that ground he was liable to ejectment from the premises in dispute
231B 3
On landlord s serving notice of demand on a tenant who may be in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months and on the tenant s failure to tender the rent to the landlord within one month from the service of the no tice the tenant is liable to eviction but in the instant case having regard to the special facts and circumstances available on the record it cannot be said that the appellant failed to tender the rent to the landlords or that he was in arrear for a period of more than four months
He was all along already to pay and since the landlord did not give any reply to his notice he was justified in depositing the arrears in the Munsif s Court
Since the deposit was made it must be deemed that the appellant had tendered rent to the landlords as contemplated by section 136 of the Act
230H 231B 4
The question whether the tenant is justified in depositing the rent in Court and whether the deeming provi sion of section 306 would be applicable to relieve him from the liability of eviction would depend upon facts of each case
The appellant in the instant case had relieved himself from the liability of eviction and he was not in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months
23IF G 5
The scheme structure and the policy discernible from the provisions of the UP Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act 1972 unmistakably aim at regulating the conditions of tenancy rent and preventing eviction of tenants
The legislature has taken care to make special provisions protecting the interest of tenants 226 from eviction while placing obligation on him to pay rent
The right of a tenant not to be evicted and the prohibition against a landlord from seeking eviction except upon speci fied grounds are well protected by the provisions of the Act and the tenant is afforded an opportunity to pay ar rears of rent even after filing of the suit and in some cases even after a decree of eviction is passed
229G 230A 6
The special provisions as contained in sections 304 30 39 and 40 indicate the legislative policy to safeguard the interest of a tenant who deposits rent in accordance with those provisions
The Court must strive to so interpret the statute as to protect and advance the object and purpose of the enactment
Any narrow or technical interpretation of the provisions would defeat the legislative policy
The Courts must therefore keep the legislative policy in mind in applying the provisions of the Act to the facts of the case
230B 7
Primarily a tenant is under a legal obligation to pay rent to the landlord as and when due and if he fails to pay the same on demand from the landlord and if he is in arrears for a period of more than four months he would be liable to ejectment
Where there is a bonafide dispute regarding the landlord s right to receive rent on account of their being several claimants or if the landlord refuses to accept the rent without there being any justification for the same the tenant would be justified to take proceeding under section 30 of the Act and deposit the rent in Court
Thereupon he would be deemed to have paid the rent to landlord consequently he would be relieved of liability of eviction
It does not however follow that the tenant is entitled to disregard the landlord or ignore his demand for payment of rent to him and deposit the same in Court
There should be justification for depositing rent in court in the absence of any justifica tion tenant would be liable to eviction
231C E