Mahendra Singh Yadav vs Mohanlal Agarwal

Sheel Nagu, J.—This second appeal u/s. 100 CPC assails the findings of both the Courts below in decreeing the suit, in favour of the landlord, instituted for eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, bonafide need for business and nuisance. The brief fact giving rise to the instant second appeal is that the plaintiff landlord approached the Civil Court by instituting suit for eviction on a grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, bonafide need for business and the tenant having caused nuisance.

The Trial Court found after framing of issues and adducing of evidence that the grounds of nuisance and bonafide need are not made out, but the suit was decreed solely on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.

The first Appellate Court upheld the decree of the Trial Court without disturbing the same.

The learned counsel for the appellant has primarily contended that a substantial error of law has been committed of both the Courts below by passing a decree u/s. 12(1)(a) for non-payment of arrears of rent in the face of security amount of Rs. 11,000/- lying with the landlord.

The learned counsel for the respondent landlord on the other hand supporting the impugned order of the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in case of Jamnalal and Others Vs. Radheshyam,

The evidence and material before the Trial Court was to the extent that though the appellant has deposited the arrears of rent within the statutory period of two months from the date of receipt of notice demanding arrears of rent but the Court below found that the monthly rent prospectively was not deposited by the tenant in terms of Section 13(1) of the Act of 1960 thereby relinquishing protection available to him u/s 12(3) and thus inviting decree of eviction.

The fact of non-compliance of the provision of Sec 13(1) in respect of payment of monthly rent after the filing of the suit is not deposited by the tenant. The Tenant merely contends that the security amount of Rs. 11,000/-, available with the landlord ought to have been utilized to treat the arrears as paid.

The respondent tenant has failed to demonstrate as to how he can rescue himself from the clutches of Section 12(3) where protection to tenant is granted only when compliance of Section 13(1) is shown which the tenant appellant has failed to do.

It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent landlord that the security amount of Rs. 11,000/- available with the landlord cannot serve the purpose of clearing arrears because the said amount was not of advance rent but a mere security amount which can only be used for clearing the arrears of rent when the landlord consents for the same, which is not the case herein.

The learned counsel for the appellant have placed reliance in the decision in case of G. Reghunathan Vs. K.V. Varghese, ), to contend that due to availability of security amount with the landlord no eviction decree could be passed for non-payment of arrears of rent. This Court is at variance to the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant tenant in view of the fact that the above said verdict of the Apex Court does not lay down any such law which is reflected from reading of para 15 where the Court merely grants the relief on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the tenant but does not pronounce finally on the question about legality of adjustment of security amount against arrears of rend. The decision of this Court in the case of Gurpal Singh and Other Vs. Govardhan Agarwal rendered on 19.06.2013 in S.A. No. 450/11 can profitably be reproduced as follows:

In the above said decision in the case of G. Reghunathan (Supra), especially in para 15 Apex Court has rendered a finding that the Apex Court for the purpose of deciding the factual matrix before it in the said case took the view that grant of eviction for non-payment of arrears of rent cannot be successfully raised if the quantum of arrears of rent, which are not in excess of the advance amount deposited by the tenant. The Apex Court did not lay down any law in that regard as is evident from reading of para 15, extract of which is reproduced below:

For the purpose of this case, especially when the tenant had pleaded that he had deposited the rent even while filing his objection in the Rent Control Court, we do not think that it is necessary to pronounce finally on this question. We feel that is only necessary to clarify that the tenant will have two months from today to deposit the rent in arrears till date and other sums in terms of Section 11(2)(c) of the Act so as to avert the execution of the order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent granted u/s 11(2) of the Act.

From the above, it is evident that no law was laid down in regard to the above said proposition as the Apex Court did not deem it necessary to pronounce final verdict on the points. Thus the said decision of G. Reghunathan (Supra) cannot be cited in support of the contention that the security amount deposited with the landlord herein should be treated as adjusted against the arrears of rent.

In view of the above findings rendered by both the Courts below which are factual in nature no substantial error of law is detected from the same. The decree for eviction passed u/s. 12(1)(a) cannot be interfered with under the limited jurisdiction u/s. 100 in the present second appeal where neither any of the proposed substantial question of law nor any new one arise for consideration. Consequently present second appeal deserves to be and is therefore rejected.