Section 30 Does Not Adjudicate Tenancy—Deposit of Rent Does Not Create Rights: Allahabad High Court Denies Revision Against Munsif’s Order

“Even if deposit is made by a person who is not a tenant, it confers no protection against eviction proceedings… Section 30 is not an adjudicatory forum” - Allahabad High Court ruled that proceedings under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 do not determine landlord-tenant relationships and do not give rise to any substantive tenancy rights. Justice Pankaj Bhatia dismissed the writ petition and reaffirmed that mere deposit of rent under Section 30 cannot bar future eviction nor be challenged through revision under Section 115 CPC.

In strong terms, the Court stated: “Section 30 does not empower the Munsif to determine the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The satisfaction required is only to the extent that the applicant ‘claims to be a tenant’.”

Builder’s Assistant Allowed to Deposit Rent — Landowner Objects
Respondent no.3 had filed an application under Section 30, asserting that he was a tenant at ₹100 per month and that the petitioner (Puran Singh) had refused rent. The petitioner disputed this, claiming the land belonged to a school and that respondent no.3 had only stored building materials temporarily.

Despite objections, the Munsif permitted deposit of rent under Section 30, observing that the applicant claimed tenancy. The District Judge rejected the petitioner’s revision under Section 115 CPC as not maintainable, leading to the current writ.

High Court’s Core Finding: “No Power to Decide Tenancy Exists Under Section 30”
Justice Bhatia categorically held that: “The scheme of the 1972 Act does not vest adjudicatory powers under Section 30. The Munsif merely facilitates rent deposit—he cannot adjudicate the validity of tenancy claims.”

Rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on Chatur Mohan and S. Chand & Co., which dealt with repealed provisions under the earlier 1947 Act, the Court clarified that: “The phrase ‘claiming to be a tenant’ is significant—it permits rent deposit even by those whose tenancy is not proven. Such a deposit cannot affect independent legal proceedings.”

Revision Not Maintainable—Special Statute Overrides CPC
Answering the key procedural point, the Court held: “With Sections 18 and 22 conferring appellate and revisional powers under the Act, Section 38 overrides the CPC. Hence, no revision lies under Section 115 against an order under Section 30.”

Further, it observed: “Permitting a revision would run contrary to the structure of the Act and its self-contained appellate mechanism.”
The Court also noted that the petitioner lacked locus, as he “neither claims to be the landlord nor is shown to be such,” making the writ legally untenable.

The Court upheld the principle that deposit of rent under Section 30 does not determine legal rights and cannot be used to shield against future legal action unless the tenancy itself is judicially recognized.

It concluded: “The satisfaction recorded under Section 30 is not an adjudication. It does not stand in the way of regular eviction proceedings by the landlord.”

Date of Decision: 7 May 2025