1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3421 OF 201    7

(Arising out of SLP(C)No. 16637 OF 2013)

MANIK CHAND JAIN  ......APPELLANT

     VERSUS

MD. AHIYA   ......RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1.This   appeal   has   been   filed   by   the   appellant­tenant

against the judgment dated 21.03.2013 of Gauhati High Court by

which judgment Civil Revision Petition No. 380 of 2012 filed

by the appellant against the judgment of the Appellate Court

directing the eviction of the appellant had been dismissed.

2.Brief   facts   of   the   case   necessary   to   be   noted   for

deciding this appeal are:

The appellant was the tenant since 1965 in respect of a

Assam Type House and paying rent at the rate of Rs. 700/­ per

month.     An   agreement   was   entered   into   between   the

defendant­tenant and the plaintiff­landlord on 01.08.1988 by

which it was agreed that the appellant shall pay an amount of

2

Rs.1,00,000/­ in three installments to the respondent­landlord

who proposed to construct a RCC building in place of Assam

Type House.   The appellant was to be given the shop after

construction of room in his occupation. It was further agreed

that monthly rent of the RCC shop room would be at the rate of

Rs.10/­ per Sq. ft. The room proposed was 24ft. X 10ft. It was

further agreed that the advance of Rs. 1,00,000/­ shall be

adjusted from the monthly rent at the rate of 50% and tenant

shall pay to the landlord in cash, the balance rent of 50%

till   the   aforesaid   advance   is   adjusted   in   full.   The

construction of the shop room was completed in April, 1990. 

3.The appellant obtained an order under 144 Cr.P.C. and was

put in possession of the newly constructed RCC  shop room in

April, 1990. However, the appellant continued to pay rent at

the   rate   of   Rs.700/­   per   month.     From   April,   1994,   the

appellant started depositing rent of Rs.700/­ per month in the

court of Sadar Munsif No. 1 under the provisions of the Assam

Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972(hereinafter referred to as

'1972 Act')  in a miscellaneous case.

4.The respondent­plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 174 of 1999

praying for decree of ejectment in respect of suit premises

and a decree for recovery of Rs.86,400/­ as arrears of rent

3

alongwith   interest.   The   respondent­plaintiff   also   claimed

ejectment on the ground of  bona fide need for setting up his

son in the business. The plaintiff's case was that in view of

the agreement dated 01.08.1988 the rate of rent was Rs.2400/­

per month  from the date of possession. The construction was

completed in April, 1990.  The possession of RCC shop room was

taken by the appellant in April, 1990 and as per agreement, he

was liable to pay Rs.2400/­ per month out of which, Rs.1200/­

was   to   be   paid   in   cash   and   Rs.1200/­   was   to   be   adjusted

against the advance made.

5.In   the   suit,   plaintiff­landlord   claimed   arrears   from

01.08.1996 till 31.08.1999 at the monthly rent of Rs. 2400/­.

The   plaintiff­landlord   did   not   claim   the   rent   prior   to

01.08.1996, as that had become barred by time.

6.A   written   statement   was   filed   by   the   tenant;   in   the

written statement, it was claimed that at the present moment

monthly rent is only Rs.700/­. Defendant­tenant pleaded that

he had agreed to pay   Rs.2400/­ per month on completion of

construction   and   since   shop   is   not   complete,   there   is   no

question   of   cash   payment   of   Rs.1200/­   and   adjustment   of

Rs.1200/­. He claimed that total amount  paid to the plaintiff

was  Rs.2,09,360/­. Both plaintiff and defendant filed their

4

evidence and were cross­examined.

7.The trial court framed ten issues. Trial court held that

construction of premises was complete in April 1990. Trial

court, however, held that rent is Rs.700/­ per month which

shall   be   treated   as   Rs.2400/­   per   month   from   the   date   of

judgment. Issue No. 5 was answered holding that defendant is a

defaulter. Trial court further held that total amount paid by

the defendant is Rs.1,82,785.95. Trial court passed an order

holding   the   plaintiff   entitled   for   recovery   of   possession.

Trial court ordered plaintiff to deposit Rs.1,82,785.95 before

execution. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the

defendant filed an appeal. A cross appeal was also filed by

the plaintiff.

8.The Appellate Court   vide  its judgment dated 21.06.2012

considered the evidence on the record pertaining to issue No.

3   which   was   regarding   the   rate   of   monthly   rent.   Appellate

Court returned the finding that monthly rent of suit premises

was   Rs.2400/­   per   month   from   the   date   of   possession.   The

finding   recorded   by   the   trial   court   that   defendant   is   a

defaulter was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Appellate Court

also took into consideration, the amount of Rs.1,82,785.95 and

after adjusting the same in the rent to which plaintiff was

5

entitled, it was held that still the defendant is defaulter to

the tune of Rs.7614/­. The appeal filed by the defendant was

dismissed whereas cross appeal of the plaintiff was allowed.

It was held that the plaintiff is entitled to get decree of

ejectment   and   recovery   of   arrears   of   rent   amounting   to

Rs.7614/­.

9.The defendant aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate

Court filed the civil revision before the High Court. High

Court considering the submissions of both the parties upheld

the   finding   of   the   Appellate   Court   that   defendant   is

defaulter. High Court also held that the rate of rent was

Rs.2400/­ per month from the date of taking possession i.e.

April, 1990. The deposit of rent at the rate of Rs.700/­ was

not held to be valid deposit within the meaning of Section

5(4) of the 1972 Act. This  appeal has been filed against the

dismissal of the civil revision of the defendant by the High

Court.

10.Learned senior counsel, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, appearing on

behalf   of   the   appellant   contended   that   High   Court   did   not

advert to the question of adjustment of advance rent which

admittedly was advanced by the defendant to the plaintiff to

the tune of Rs.1,82,785.95/­, hence, the judgment of the High

6

Court   is   erroneous.   He   further   contends   that   in   the   suit

plaintiff   claimed   arrears   of   rent   only   from   01.08.1996   to

31.07.1999, for which period the total amount due at the rate

of   Rs.2400/­   is   only   Rs.86,400/­   and   after   taking   into

consideration the rent paid at the rate of Rs.700/­ per month,

there is still surplus rent in view of the advance made and

the courts below had committed error in holding the defendant

as   defaulter.   It   is   further   contended   that   plaintiff   had

accepted the rent of Rs.700/­ per month till April, 1994 and

after April, 1994 till July 1999 if the total rent due is

calculated   it   shall   come   as   Rs.1,53,600/­   and   taking   into

consideration the rent paid and the advance amount there shall

still   be   surplus   hence,   the   finding   of   the   default   is

unsustainable.

11.Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   refuting   the

submission of the counsel for the appellant contends that in

view of the agreement dated 01.08.1988, the tenant was liable

to pay Rs.2400/­ from the date of taking possession and out of

the rent of Rs.2400/­, Rs.1200/­ was to be adjusted towards

advance and Rs.1200/­ was to be paid in cash.  Admittedly, the

defendant claims the only payment of Rs.700/­ per month since

April 1990 till filing of the suit, hence there is a clear

default since the rent became due of Rs.2400/­ per month from

7

April, 1990 and the courts below have rightly come to the

conclusion that default has been committed by the defendant.

12.We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel

for the parties and perused the record.  There is no dispute

between the parties that the rent of the shop room, an Assam

Type   House   Construction,   was   Rs.700/­   per   month.     The

plaintiff­landlord proposed to construct the RCC building in

place of the above Assam Type House including the room, which

was in occupation of defendant. An agreement dated 01.08.1988

was   entered   into   between   the   parties,   which   agreement   is

admitted to both the parties. The agreement records that the

second party is willing to advance a sum of  Rs.1,00,000/­ and

further   a   security   amount   of   Rs.50,000/­   at   the   time   of

handing over the possession. Paras 6 and 7 of the agreement

are relevant, which are to the following effect:

“6.That the monthly rent of the RCC room

shall be at the rate of Rs. 10/­ (Rupees

ten   only)   per   square   fit   and   shall   be

payable   within   the   first   week   of   every

subsequent month falling due.   The height

of the RCC room will be 16' as per approved

G. M. C.  Plan.  The length of the RCC room

will be 24' fit and the breath will 10' at

the minimum. It may be mentioned that if

the floor of the RCC room after completion

construction   exceeds   more   than   24'   x   10'

sq.   ft.   the   second   party   shall   pay   the

monthly   rent   at   the   agreed   rate   for   the

entire floor area under the possession of

the second party. 

8

7.That the advance amount of Rs. 1, 00,

000/­ (Rupees one lakh) are adjusted from

the monthly rent at the rate of 50% and the

second party shall pay to the first party

only   the   balance   rent   of   50%   till   the

aforesaid advance is adjusted in full.”

13.From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that new

construction was completed by April, 1990 and the defendant

was   put   in   possession   of   the   shop   room   in   April,   1990.

Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record has

held that the monthly rent of the shop premises is Rs. 2400/­

per month from the date of taking possession i.e. April, 1990.

It is the case of the defendant that even after taking the

possession of newly constructed shop he has paid the rent at

the rate of Rs.700/­ per month which was the old rate of rent.

From April, 1994, the defendant claims to deposit the rent

i.e.   Rs.700/­   per   month   in   the   court   in   the   miscellaneous

case.

14.Section   5   of   the   1972   Act,   contains   a   heading   “Bar

against   passing   and   execution   of   decree   and   order   for

ejection”. Section 5(1)(e) and Section 5(4) which are relevant

for the  present case are as follows:

"5(1). No order or decree for the recovery

of possession of any house shall be made or

executed by any Court so long as the tenant

9

pays   rent   to   the   full   extent   allowable

under this Act and performs the conditions

of the tenancy:

      Provided   that   nothing   in   this

sub­section   shall   apply   in   a   suit   or

proceedings for eviction of the tenant from

the house:­

    (a)...   ...  ...  ...

     (e) where the tenant has not paid the

rent lawfully due from him in respect of

the house within a fortnight of its falling

due, or

... ... ... ...

(4). Where the landlord refuses to accept

the lawful rent offered by his tenant, the

tenant   may,   within   a   fortnight   of   its

becoming due, deposit in Court the amount

of such rent together with process fees for

service of notice upon the landlord, and on

receiving   such   deposit,   the   Court   shall

cause   a   notice   of   the   receipt   of   such

deposit to be served on the landlord, and

the amount of the deposit may thereafter be

withdrawn   by   the   landlord   on   application

made by him to the Court in that behalf.  A

tenant who has made such deposit shall not

be treated as a defaulter under clause (e)

of   the   proviso   to   sub­section(1)   of   this

section.”

15. The provision of Section 5(1)(e) clearly indicates that

where the tenant has not paid the rent lawfully due from him

in respect of the house within a fortnight of its falling due,

he   is   not   saved   from   ejectment.   Section   5   sub­section   (4)

10

further provides that   where the landlord refuses to accept

the lawful rent offered by his tenant, the tenant may, within

a fortnight of its becoming due, deposit in Court the amount

of such rent together with process fees for service of notice

upon the landlord.

16. In view of Clause 6 of the Agreement dated 01.08.1988 and

as per findings recorded by the Appellate Court as well as

High Court monthly rent from April, 1990 was Rs.2400/­. Taking

into consideration Clause 7 of the Agreement, which provided

for adjustment of 50% of the rent towards advance and payment

of rent at the rate of Rs.1200/­, the defendant was liable to

pay rent at the rate of Rs.1200/­. The other part of Rs.1200/­

was to be adjusted towards the advance made. Till the entire

advance is not adjusted the rent was also not to be increased

as per condition of the agreement. Thus, lawful payment which

was   entitled   to   be   received   by   the   plaintiff­landlord   was

Rs.1200/­.   Admittedly,   the   defendant­tenant   has   paid   only

Rs.700/­, even after taking possession of shop in April, 1990

and deposited the same amount of Rs.700/­ in the court from

April, 1994. The deposit made by the defendant­tenant in the

court was not the deposit of the lawful rent and no error has

been committed by the courts below in holding the defendant as

defaulter.   The   decree   passed   by   the   Appellate   Court   for

11

ejectment and arrears of rent as confirmed by the High Court

was based on appreciation of relevant evidence on record.

17.  The submission which has been pressed by Dr. Rajiv Dhawan

is non­consideration of adjustment of advance to the extent of

Rs.1,82,785.95/­ by the High Court. Although the High Court

has not considered the question of adjustment of the advance

rent, but the Appellate Court has specifically considered the

adjustment of the above advance. It is useful to extract the

detail   consideration   by   the   Appellate   Court   towards   the

adjustment of above advance. Following has been held by the

Appellate Court:

"It   is   admitted   by   the   defendant   in   his

written statement that the defendant took

possession   of   the   newly   constructed   suit

room   in   the   month   of   April,   1990   and   in

issue   No.   3   it   is   decided   that   the

defendant   is   liable   to   pay   rent   to   Rs.

2400/­ p.m. since the month of April, 1990

but the defendant has paid only at the rate

of 700/­ p.m. in respect of suit room till

date.  Since the month of April, 1990 till

July,   1999(date   of   filing   suit)   the

defendant is liable to pay rent at the rate

of 2400/­p.m. for a period of 112 months

which comes to Rs. 2,68,800/­ (Rs.2400/­ x

112 months). But the defendant has paid the

rent at the rate of 700/­ p.m. for the said

period which comes to Rs. 78, 400/­ hence

the defendant is liable to pay arrear rent

of Rs.1, 90, 400/­ till the month of July,

1999. In issue No. 8 it is held that the

defendant paid Rs.1,85,785.95 in favour of

plaintiff   as   advance   and   security.   So,

12

after   adjustment   of   said   advance   of

Rs.1,82,785.95   from   the   arrear   due   of

Rs.1,90,400/­,   the   arrear   rent   of

Rs.7614.05               (Rs. 1,90,400/­ ­ Rs.

1,82, 785.95)” remains due till the month

of July, 1999. From the above, it is clear

that   no   advance   amount   remain   to   be

adjusted.   The advance amount has already

been adjusted with the monthly rent and the

plaintiff   is   entitled   to   receive   arrear

rent of Rs. 7614.05. As the plaintiff has

not   claimed   future   rent,   hence   no   relief

can be granted to him for future rent. 

 In view of the decision of the foregoing

points,   the   Appeal   is   dismissed   and   the

cross appeal is partly allowed with cost.

The plaintiff is entitled to get the decree

for   ejectment   of   the   defendant   from   the

Schedule A premises by removing his men and

materials   and   recovery   of   arrear   rent   of

Rs.   7611.05.   Prepare   the   decree

accordingly.”

18.  From the findings of the Appellate Court, as noted above,

it is clear that even after adjustment of the entire advance

amount still there is a default of Rs. 7614/­. The appellate

Court, thus, proceeded to adjust the entire advance made by

the defendant and still default having been found decree of

ejectment had been passed which needs no interference by this

Court in exercise of our jurisdiction under     Article 136.

19.The   default   on   the   part   of   defendant   is   also   proved

looking into the matter in accordance with the Agreement dated

01.08.1988.   We   have   already   extracted   Clause   7   of   the

13

Agreement which refers to the adjustment of the rent to the

extent of 50% of the rent and further contemplates payment of

50% of rent in cash. Thus the liability of the defendant to

pay the rent from the date of taking the possession in cash

was   Rs.1200/­   with   adjustment   of   balance     Rs.1200/­.   The

advance was to be adjusted in accordance with the aforesaid

condition. Lawful rent in cash, which was to be paid by the

defendant­tenant was Rs. 1200/­ per month. Right from April,

1990   till   the   institution   of   suit,   defendant­tenant   has

claimed the payment of rent at the rate of Rs.700/­ per month

only. Lawful rent, thus, was not paid by the defendant­tenant

to   which   the   plaintiff­landlord   was   entitled   to   as   per

Agreement   dated   01.08.1988.   The   Agreement   dated   01.08.1988

being admitted to the tenant, he cannot be heard in saying

that by mere payment of Rs. 700/­ per month i.e. payment at

the old rate, he can be saved from the eviction.

20.In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   we   are   of   the

considered opinion that Appellate Court has rightly considered

the entire evidence on record and answered the issues framed

by trial court correctly. The findings of the Appellate Court

that defendant is defaulter affirmed by the High Court are

findings   of   the   facts   based   on   appreciation   of   entire

14

evidence. We do not find any error in the judgment and order

of the Appellate Court directing eviction and arrears of rent.

The High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the

revision.

21.In result, the appeal is dismissed.

......................J.

     (A. K. SIKRI)

......................J.

                     (ASHOK BHUSHAN)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 06, 2017.

15

REVISED

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV

(FOR JUDGMENT)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 3421/2017

MANIK CHAND JAIN Appellant(s)

VERSUS

MD. AHIYA Respondent(s)

Date : 06/03/2017 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of

judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Manish Goswami, Adv.

Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Kumar Parimal Adv.

Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan pronounced the judgment of

the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and His

Lordship.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

judgment.

However, six months' time is granted to vacate the premises

from today, subject to filing usual undertaking within four weeks.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of

accordingly.

(Ashwani Thakur) (Mala Kumari Sharma )

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

16

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV

(FOR JUDGMENT)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 3421/2017

MANIK CHAND JAIN Appellant(s)

VERSUS

MD. AHIYA Respondent(s)

Date : 06/03/2017 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of

judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Manish Goswami, Adv.

Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Kumar Parimal Adv.

Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan pronounced the judgment of

the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and His

Lordship.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of

accordingly.

(Ashwani Thakur) (Mala Kumari Sharma )

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)