# Ashok Kumar and another v. Din Dayal Badal

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 640
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-07-15
- **Case number:** Civil Revision No.338 of 1989
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-and-another-v-din-dayal-badal-40292
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-
Sections 30 (2) and 20 (4)-Deposit made
under S. 30 (2) by tenant- validity-Death
of original land lord- Tenant did not
know
to
whom
rent
payable-Thus
deposit under S. 30 (2), held to be a valid
deposit-No arrears of rent due on date of
notice of demand- Tenant not in arrears
of rent of more than four months under
S. 20 (4)-suit for eviction by heris, held,
not maintainable.

In the present case, the deposit which
has been made by the tenant was made
under section 30 (2) of the Act and not
under section 30 (1) of the Act. The
tenant had categorically stated in his
application that the landlord had died
and that he did not know as to whom the
rent should now be paid. Thus, the
deposit of rent under section 30(2) of
the Act, was a valid deposit. The
contention of the learned counsel for the
applicant that the deposit was made
under section 30 (1) is wholly incorrect.
Consequently, the judgment cited by the
learned counsel are distinguishable and
are not applicable to the present case.
Since a valid deposit had been made by
the tenant, there were no arrears of rent
on the date when the notice of demand
was served. Consequently, the tenant
was not in arrears of rent of more than
four months under section 20(4) of the
Act and could not be evicted from the
premises in question.

Para 5
Case law discussed:
1995(2) ARC 360
1984 (2) ARC 324
1981 ARC 506

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
640
exparte order. The Supreme Court held
that the provision of Order 9 Rule 7 CPC
was not attracted to a date fixed for
delivery of judgment and it was not a case
of adjourned hearing. In the present case
no date was fixed for delivery of
judgment. In fact after passing of the
exparte order and before delivery of
judgment, the defendant appeared on the
same date and moved an application.
Such application was clearly maintainable
even under order 9 Rule 7 CPC.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the
revision fails and is dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to cost.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.7.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Revision No.338 of 1989

Ashok Kumar and another
...Applicant
Versus
Din Dayal Badal

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri B.N. Agarwala

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Virendra Kumar

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-
Sections 30 (2) and 20 (4)-Deposit made
under S. 30 (2) by tenant- validity-Death
of original land lord- Tenant did not
know
to
whom
rent
payable-Thus
deposit under S. 30 (2), held to be a valid
deposit-No arrears of rent due on date of
notice of demand- Tenant not in arrears
of rent of more than four months under
S. 20 (4)-suit for eviction by heris, held,
not maintainable.

In the present case, the deposit which
has been made by the tenant was made
under section 30 (2) of the Act and not
under section 30 (1) of the Act. The
tenant had categorically stated in his
application that the landlord had died
and that he did not know as to whom the
rent should now be paid. Thus, the
deposit of rent under section 30(2) of
the Act, was a valid deposit. The
contention of the learned counsel for the
applicant that the deposit was made
under section 30 (1) is wholly incorrect.
Consequently, the judgment cited by the
learned counsel are distinguishable and
are not applicable to the present case.
Since a valid deposit had been made by
the tenant, there were no arrears of rent
on the date when the notice of demand
was served. Consequently, the tenant
was not in arrears of rent of more than
four months under section 20(4) of the
Act and could not be evicted from the
premises in question.

Para 5
Case law discussed:
1995(2) ARC 360
1984 (2) ARC 324
1981 ARC 506

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. The original landlord died on
11.11.1987. The tenant remitted the rent
by money-order, which was returned with
the remark that the original landlord had
died. Accordingly, the tenant filed an
application under section 30 of the U.P.
Act No.13 of 1972, stating therein that the
original landlord had died and that it was
not known as to whom the rent should be
sent. Notice on this application was sent
to the heirs of the landlord, who refused
to accept the summons and, accordingly,
the Munsif permitted the tenant to deposit
the rent under section 30 of the Act.
Thereafter, the heirs of the original
landlord sent a notice dated 9.8.1988
to the tenant demanding arrears of rent
and further terminated the tenancy.
This notice was duly served upon the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Ashok Kumar and another V. Din Dayal Badal
641
 defendant on 16.8.1988. The defendant
submitted
a
reply
dated
30.8.1988
intimating the heirs that he had deposited
the rent under section 30 of the Act in the
Court of Munsif and that the heirs may
withdraw the rent from the court. The
tenant also intimated that he was not in
arrears of rent. Inspite of this reply, the
heirs filed a suit for arrears of rent and for
eviction. The Judge Small Cause Court
dismissed the suit holding that the tenant
was not in arrears of rent and that he had
made a valid deposit of rent under section
30(2) of the Act. The Court below while
dismissing the suit, however directed the
landlord to withdraw the rent deposited by
the defendant.

2. Aggrieved by the decision of the
Judge Small Cause Court, the landlord
has now filed the present revision under
section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act 1887.

3. The learned counsel for the
landlord submitted that there was no valid
deposit of rent under section 30 (1) of the
Act and therefore, no benefit could be
given to the tenant with regard to the said
deposit. The learned counsel submitted
that the money order sent by the tenant
was returned with the remark that the
landlord had died and therefore, it could
not be said that there had been a refusal
which would justify the tenant to deposit
the rent under section 30 (1) of the Act. In
support of his submission, the learned
counsel had relied upon 1995(2) ARC
360,Jagat
Prasad
v.
District
Judge,
Kanpur and others, 1984 (2) ARC 324,
Satish Chandra Nigam v. The District
Judge, Kanpur and others and 1981 ARC
506, Jawahar Lal Chaurasiya v. Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur
and others.

4. The submission of the learned
counsel, though attractive is however not
applicable in the instant case. The deposit
of rent in the present case is not under
section 30 (1) of the Act, but under
section 30 (2) of the Act. Section 30 (1)
and (2) of the Act reads as under:

"30. Deposit of rent in Court in
certain
circumstances-(1)
If
any
person claiming to be a tenant of a
building tenders any amount as rent in
respect of the building to its alleged
landlord and the alleged landlord
refuses to accept the same then the
former may deposit such amount in the
prescribed manner and continue to
deposit any rent which he alleges to be
due for any subsequent period in
respect of such building until the
landlord in the meantime signifies by
notice in writing to the tenant his
willingness to accept it.

(2) Where any bonafide doubt or
dispute has arisen as to the person who is
entitled to receive any rent in respect of
any building, the tenant may likewise
deposit the rent stating the circumstances
under which such deposit is made and
may, until such doubt has been removed
or such dispute has been settled by the
decision of any competent Court or by
settlement between the parties, continue
to deposit the rent that may subsequently
become due in respect of such building."

From a perusal of the aforesaid
provisions it is clear that when the
landlord refuses to accept the rent from
the tenant, in that case the tenant is
entitled and justified to deposit the rent in
the Court under section 30 (1) of the Act.
However, in a case where a bonafide
doubt or dispute arises as to who would
be entitled to receive the rent in respect of
the building, in such cases the tenant may
deposit the rent in Court under section 30
(2) of the Act.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
642

5. In the present case, the deposit
which has been made by the tenant was
made under section 30 (2) of the Act and
not under section 30 (1) of the Act. The
tenant had categorically stated in his
application that the landlord had died and
that he did not know as to whom the rent
should now be paid. Thus, the deposit of
rent under section 30 (2) of the Act, was a
valid deposit. The contention of the
learned counsel for the applicant that the
deposit was made under section 30 (1) is
wholly
incorrect.
Consequently,
the
judgment cited by the learned counsel are
distinguishable and are not applicable to
the present case. Since a valid deposit had
been made by the tenant, there were no
arrears of rent on the date when the notice
of demand was served. Consequently, the
tenant was not in arrears of rent of more
than four months under section 20(4) of
the Act and could not be evicted from the
premises in question.

6. In view of the aforesaid, I find no
reason to interfere in the judgment passed
by the Court below. There is no merit in
the present revision and is dismissed. In
the circumstances of the case there shall
be no order as to cost.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 9.7.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Trade Tax Revision No. 858 of 1994

M/s Bharat Oil Company
...Applicant
Versus
Commissioner
of
Trade
Tax,
U.P.,
Lucknow

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri R.R. Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

U.P. Trade Tax Act-S. 15(1) (c)-Levy of
Penalty-Legality-No difference between
tax returned and tax assessment-As
account books of dealer stood acceptedreassessment order set aside.

In the present case there is no difference
in between the tax, tax as returned and
the tax as assessed, as the account
books of the dealer stand accepted and
the reassessment order stands set aside.

In the result I am of the view that no
case for levy of penalty under section 15A (1) (C) of the Act has been made out.

 Para 6
Case law discussed:
1988 UPTC 1104
(1968) 21 STC 104
1986 UPTC 1301
2004 UPTC 217

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.)

1. The present revision arises out of
penalty proceedings under section 15-A
(1) (C) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the
assessment
year
1968-1969.
The
applicant, a partnership firm, disclosed its
total sales of imported kerosene oil at
Rs.1,67,155-50. The account book,
during the assessment proceeding was
accepted by the assessing authority. After
the completion of assessment order some
information
was
received
by
the
Department to the effect that the applicant
has imported kerosene oil amounting to
Rs.7,06,921/-
from
Indian
Oil
Corporation in the aforesaid assessment
year.
The
department
initiated
reassessment proceeding, in order to
assess the escaped turnover, under
section 21 of U.P. Sales Tax Act. The
reassessment proceeding was contested
by the applicant. However, reassessment
order creating additional demand was