Tenant Cannot Retain Possession Without Paying Rent: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Eviction for Non-Payment

Failure to Deposit Court-Ordered Rent is a Legal Default, Warranting Eviction - In a decisive ruling Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, granting an eviction decree in favor of the landlords. The case, arising under Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, revolved around a tenant’s failure to pay rent since 1982 and non-compliance with a court directive to deposit rent during litigation.

Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal, while delivering the judgment in Second Appeal No. 1222 of 1999, made it clear that:

“A tenant cannot be permitted to occupy rented premises without payment of rent. The failure to deposit rent, even when directed by the court, amounts to default, warranting eviction under the law.”

The Legal Battle Over Unpaid Rent
The dispute arose over a rented house in Burhanpur, where the original plaintiff, Mst. Chhotam Bi, had filed an eviction suit against tenant Sheikh Habib, alleging non-payment of rent from September 1, 1982, despite repeated demands and a formal legal notice issued on February 12, 1985. The tenant not only contested the rent amount, arguing that it was ₹12 per month instead of ₹50, but also claimed that there was an oral agreement to adjust house tax payments against rent dues.

The Trial Court, acknowledging the dispute, fixed ₹12 per month as provisional rent under Section 13(1) of the Act. However, the tenant failed to deposit even this court-determined rent. Despite this non-compliance, the Trial Court dismissed the eviction suit, and the First Appellate Court upheld the decision, leading the landlords to approach the High Court in second appeal.

"Rent Once Fixed by the Court Must Be Paid, Else Default is Established": High Court Criticizes Lower Courts' Lapses
The High Court, after analyzing the facts, found that the tenant had failed to comply with the Trial Court’s order to deposit ₹12 per month and ruled that:

“Once the court fixes a provisional rent, it becomes the tenant’s legal duty to deposit it. The record is clear that the tenant did not make any such payments. This non-compliance makes him a defaulter under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, and eviction is the necessary consequence.”

The Court took strong exception to the fact that both lower courts ignored the mandatory nature of compliance under Section 13(1) of the Act, leading to a miscarriage of justice in favor of the defaulting tenant.

"House Tax Payments Cannot Be Adjusted Against Rent Without Written Proof": Court Rejects Tenant’s Defense
The tenant’s primary defense was that he had been paying house tax on behalf of the landlord, which was supposed to be adjusted against rent. The High Court rejected this argument, observing:

“No documentary evidence exists to prove any such agreement. A tenant cannot unilaterally decide to adjust property tax against rent unless there is a clear written agreement to that effect.”

The Court further noted that the alleged tax payments were made only after the legal notice for rent arrears was served, indicating that the defense was an afterthought.

"Eviction Can Be Ordered Even for a Single Default": Supreme Court Precedents Upheld
Relying on Jamnalal and Others v. Radheshyam (2000) 4 SCC 380 and Agrawal Medical Agencies v. Govind Prasad, 2012(2) MPLJ 147, the Court reaffirmed the settled legal position that:

“A tenant’s failure to pay rent, even for a single month, when required under law, can justify an eviction order. The obligation to pay rent is sacrosanct, and courts cannot permit tenants to occupy properties without fulfilling their fundamental responsibility.”

The Court concluded that the tenant's repeated default and failure to comply with judicial orders made eviction inevitable.

"Landlord Cannot Be Forced to Litigate Indefinitely to Recover Rent": Court Grants Two-Month Time for Vacating Premises
Setting aside the erroneous decisions of the lower courts, the High Court decreed the eviction of the tenant and directed that:

“The tenant must vacate the premises within two months, failing which legal enforcement shall follow. Additionally, he is liable to clear arrears of rent at ₹12 per month for the defaulted period.”

The Court expressed concern over how landlords are often forced into prolonged litigation to recover even minimal rent amounts, and reiterated that the law must not be misused to deny rightful eviction where default is proven.

With this ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has sent a strong message that tenants cannot take rent obligations lightly. The judgment stands as a precedent that reinforces the importance of compliance with court orders and ensures that landlords are not left helpless when tenants fail to pay rent.

The judgment clarifies that:

•    Once a court fixes provisional rent, the tenant must deposit it, failing which eviction is justified.
•    House tax payments cannot be adjusted against rent without explicit written agreement.
•    A single instance of default can warrant eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

By granting eviction, the High Court has upheld the landlord’s right to receive rent and the tenant’s duty to comply with statutory obligations, ensuring that justice is not denied due to procedural lapses by lower courts.

Date of Decision: 06 March 2025