Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Tenant can't deposit rent in court if landlord willing to accept it directly – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 5 April 2023, Supreme Court , in a recent Judgement MAN SINGH Vs SHAMIM AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS, has held that once a landlord expresses willingness to accept rent directly, a tenant can no longer deposit rent in court. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia. The case pertained to the dispute between a landlord and tenant over the rate of rent. The landlord had filed a suit for eviction against the tenant after the latter failed to pay rent at the enhanced rate demanded by the former.

The Allahabad High Court had earlier set aside the findings of the trial court and the sessions court on the enhanced rent. It held that there was no evidence before the trial court of any 'oral agreement' set up by the landlord, which provided for a periodical increase of rent from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs. 275/- per month, and then to Rs. 300/- per month, and so on. Since the so-called oral agreement between the parties was not proved, it would be deemed that the correct rent between the parties was Rs. 250/- per month, which was being paid by the tenant in the court under Section 30 of the Act.

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Allahabad High Court and further elaborated on the legal position post notice dated 05.04.1995. Section 30 of the Act provides that the deposit may be made in the court on refusal of the rent by the landlord, but this position only lasts till the landlord expresses his willingness to receive the rent. This willingness to receive the rent has to be seen in his notice dated 05.04.1995 received on 10.05.1995, by the tenant. The High Court held that once the notice of demand was sent to the tenant by the landlord on 05.04.1995 (received by the appellant on 10.04.1995), demanding a rent at the enhanced rate, then the tenant had no option but to deposit the rent before the landlord, as against depositing it in the court.

The court also observed that the Full Bench decision of Gokaran Singh v. Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi and Ors. held that if the landlord had earlier been refusing to accept rent at the correct rate and had been claiming rent at higher rate and the tenant had as a consequence of landlords earlier refusal in the past, deposited the rent in court under Section 30 and thereafter, landlord serves a formal notice of demand again at a higher rate, then the tenant after receipt of notice is under an obligation to tender the rent at least at the rate admitted to him to the landlord and has got no right to straight away deposit the same under Section 30(1) of the Act.

In conclusion, the court held that once the landlord expresses willingness to accept the rent directly, the tenant has no option but to deposit the rent to the landlord and not in the court. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

5 April 2023,

MAN SINGH Vs SHAMIM AHMAD (DEAD) THR.

 

Latest Legal News