Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that tenants facing eviction for non-payment of rent must not only settle their overdue rent but also continue to pay future rent regularly, either as previously agreed upon or as determined by the court. The court clarified that failure to make timely rent payments during ongoing legal proceedings will still result in eviction.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal highlighted that in any rent proceeding, the courts can always take the subsequent facts into consideration, which may be relevant. 

Following this principle, the court directed the immediate eviction of a tenant who failed to comply with a previous order from May 2, 2014, to pay rent at a rate of Rs 4,000 per month since March 2017.

The bench also clarified that the appellant-landlady had the right to recover the arrears of rent from the respondent-tenant as determined by the top court for the period of default by initiating appropriate legal proceedings if necessary.

In this case, the appellant, Meera Devi (now deceased), sought eviction of the respondent-tenant, Dinesh Chandra Joshi, based on non-payment of rent. Joshi had been renting a property in Jhansi for a monthly fee of ₹5.26 but had allegedly not paid any rent since September 14, 1991. Despite a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, served on November 15, 1997, no payment was made until December 15, 1997. Consequently, the suit for recovery of arrears and eviction was filed.

The trial court decreed the suit ordering the respondent-tenant to vacate the property within one month and pay compensation at the rate of Rs 50 per month from the suit's filing date.

Following this decision, both parties filed 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) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 as valid.

The respondent-tenant had challenged the judgment of the trial court against the direction of eviction from the property in question along with compensation.

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 Rs 50 to Rs 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 common judgment passed by the revisional court before the high court, which allowed it and as a consequence, the suit filed by the appellant-landlady was dismissed.

The top court noted the ownership of the appellant-landlady was not in dispute.

The court pointed out that a perusal of the paper book showed that notice was issued on January 02, 2014, in the special leave petition.

By its order on May 02, 2014, the court also noted that the leave was granted and a perusal of the order showed that during the pendency of the appeal the respondent-tenant was directed to pay rent at the rate of Rs 4,000 per month. The basis therefore was that during the pendency of the writ petition before the high court, an interim order was passed directing the respondent-tenant to pay the rent at the rate of Rs 4,000 per month. 

The bench pointed out that the said order was challenged before the top court and upheld by the order on December 11, 2006 passed in a special leave petition.

During the proceedings, Shobha Devi Tripathi, daughter and legal representative of Late Meera Devi, filed an affidavit on February 21, 2024. She specifically mentioned that though initially the respondent-tenant paid the amount fixed by this court but he had 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, she said.

The court noted that the said statement remained uncontroverted.

"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," the bench said.

"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," the bench added.

The court accordingly allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the high court.

Case Title:  Meera Devi (D) Thr LR Vs Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) Thr LRs