# Mahendra Kumar Jain v. Mohammad Imran & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 68
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-13
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 5780 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahendra-kumar-jain-v-mohammad-imran-anr-53022
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Urban Building Control of
Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 -
Sections 20 (4) & 30 (1) - Uttar Pradesh
Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
Act, 2021 - Section 4 - Against eviction
order
-
Quantum
of
deposit
-
Tenant/petitioner
upon
suit
being
instituted
for
non-payment
of
rent,
required to deposit rent and damages
both for use and occupation of building
and too in its entirety but damages to be
calculated at same rate as rent together
with their interest at rate of 9% per
annum and cost of suit that may have
accrued to landlord - In entire judgment
of trial court, there is no determination of
or reference to cost of suit and what
damages tenant was liable to pay -
Findings that demanded rate of rent and
damages not paid - Merely because tenant
could not exactly say what would be
amount or rate of rent at current market
value, trial court not justified in holding
that deposit made fell short of requisite
deposit - To deny statutory benefit to
petitioner are unsustainable - The deposit
could not rejected only on ground that
challan form did not disclose under which
head deposit had been made - Suit for
recovery of arrears of rent and damages
by landlord is dismissed. (Para 19, 25, 26,
28)

Petition partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 68
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5780 of 2023

Mahendra Kumar Jain ...Petitioner
Versus
Mohammad Imran & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rama Goel Bansal, Shalini Goel

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Smriti Gupta

Civil Law - U.P. Urban Building Control of
Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 -
Sections 20 (4) & 30 (1) - Uttar Pradesh
Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
Act, 2021 - Section 4 - Against eviction
order
-
Quantum
of
deposit
-
Tenant/petitioner
upon
suit
being
instituted
for
non-payment
of
rent,
required to deposit rent and damages
both for use and occupation of building
and too in its entirety but damages to be
calculated at same rate as rent together
with their interest at rate of 9% per
annum and cost of suit that may have
accrued to landlord - In entire judgment
of trial court, there is no determination of
or reference to cost of suit and what
damages tenant was liable to pay -
Findings that demanded rate of rent and
damages not paid - Merely because tenant
could not exactly say what would be
amount or rate of rent at current market
value, trial court not justified in holding
that deposit made fell short of requisite
deposit - To deny statutory benefit to
petitioner are unsustainable - The deposit
could not rejected only on ground that
challan form did not disclose under which
head deposit had been made - Suit for
recovery of arrears of rent and damages
by landlord is dismissed. (Para 19, 25, 26,
28)

Petition partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kashi Nath Vs Sushila Devi 2003 (2) ARC 347,
(Paras 70 to 73, 76)

2. S.B.I. Vs Shankar Dayal Agarwal 2010 2 ARC
378

3. Ramesh Kumar Sachdeva Vs Rakesh Kumar
Rastogi, Civil Revision No. 125 of 2013, decided
on 21.3.2018

4. Mahendra Pratap Garg Vs Smt Vijay Lakshmi
General 1983 (1) ARC 74, (Paras 12 to 20)

5.
Gopal Yadav Vs Special Judge (Anti
Corruption)/ Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Varanasi & ors. 2002 (1) ARC 197, (Paras
8, 14, 16 to18)

6. Sushil Sharma Vs VIII A.D.J., Ghaziabad 2001
ARC page 458, (Para 9) (Relied on)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Shivangi Nanda, learned
Advocate holding brief of Ms. Rama Goel
Bansal, learned counsel appearing for
petitioner and Ms. Smriti Gupta, learned
Advocate appearing for landlord respondents.

2. The tenant petitioner is before
this Court questioning the judgment and
decree passed by the Judge Small Causes,
Jhansi in SCC Suit No. 17 of 2015
decreeing the suit for eviction as well as the
judgment and order dated 12.04.2025
passed by Additional District Judge Court
No.4 Jhansi affirming the judgment of the
trial court.

3. Ms. Nanda, learned Advocate
appearing for petitioner assailing the
2 All. Mahendra Kumar Jain Vs. Mohammad Imran & Anr.
69
judgment and degree, submitted
before the Court that tenant petitioner
having made sufficient deposit of arrears of
rent due to be paid as per notice coupled
with interest, court fee and expenses, was
entitled to statutory benefit provided for
under Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Urban
Building Control of Letting Rent and
eviction Act 1972. She argued that the
admitted rate of rent as per the plaint itself
was Rs. 80 per month and the amount that
was due to be as per claim in the notice was
with effect from 01.04.2013 till 12.05.2015
with further two months of June and July,
as the suit came to be instituted in August
2015. So according to Ms. Nanda the
amount that was to be calculated towards
the arrears should have been at the rate of
Rs. 80 and further taxes and interest with
Advocate fee and according to her the total
amount that was deposited on the first date
of hearing was Rs. 8,000/- which included
rent, taxes, interest and Advocate fee. This
deposit was made according to her on
13.09.2015 soon after filing of the suit vide
challan 57-C and the rent subsequently
came
to
be
deposited
continuously.
However, trial court found the deposit to be
not sufficient for want of requisite deposit
towards damages and thus, it came to be
held that, petitioner having not deposited
the amount as per Section 20 (4),was not
entitled to avail statutory benefit.

4. Ms. Nanda further argued that
non compliance of Rule 21 (5) does not
arise in the present case for the simple
reason that no such claim was made by the
petitioner qua deposit under Section 30 (1).
She vehemently urged that never ever any
such claim was set up, nor any such
miscellaneous case was filed seeking
deposit under Section 30 (1) of the Act No.
13 of 1972. Thus, according to Ms. Nanda
the findings returned to the effect that
petitioner was not entitled to statutory
benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act No.
13 of 1972 is perverse and deserves to be
set aside and hence, on that count the
judgment and decree passed by the trial
Judge is clearly unsustainable. She further
argued that the same manifest error was
committed by the appellate Court and,
hence, the judgment of the appellate court
affirming the order of the trial judge is
equally bad and deserves to be set aside. In
support of her submission, learned counsel
appearing for petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Kashi Nath v.
Sushila Devi 2003 (2)ARC 347.

5. Taking the argument further on
the issue of quantum of deposit and the
heads under which deposit is to be made
under Section 20 (4) Ms. Nanda argued that
the damages cannot be more than the
agreed rent between the parties in respect
of building covered under Act No. 13 of
1972. According to her, if the damages are
taken to be at the rate of Rs. 80 per month
as the rent was, even then the deposit was
sufficient. She has placed reliance upon the
two judgments of co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in State Bank of India v. Shankar
Dayal Agarwal 2010 2 ARC 378 as well
as judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar
Sachdeva v. Rakesh Kumar Rastogi
decided on 21.3.2018 in Civil Revision No.
125 of 2013.

6. Per contra, defending the
judgment and decree in question Ms. Smriti
Gupta, learned counsel appearing for
respondent has vehemently urged before
the Court that while the law laid down by
this Court is to the effect that damages
cannot be more than rent but the damages
as referred to under Section 20 (4) do not
provide the specific period for which
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
damages are to be charged and the manner
in which it is to be charged. According to
her a tenant if is in default of payment of
rent, he deserves eviction as he becomes a
trespasser and, therefore, he is to pay
damages on day to day basis for such
unauthorized occupation of the building.
She further defended the judgment and
decree for the reasons assigned in the
judgment and contended that the court of
appeal while affirming the judgment had
referred to this fact that even the challan
form 18-C which had been filed, did not
disclose as to under which head the
payment had been made and how the
amount had been quantified.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
respective parties and having perused the
records and the judgment cited before this
Court,
the
point
that
arises
for
consideration is, whether the findings of the
courts below on the point of sufficiency of
deposit made under Section 20 (4) are
liable to be upheld to sustain the decree or
the
findings
are
perverse
for
misinterpretation of the relevant provisions
of law and so the judgment is liable to be
rendered bad and, hence, the suit deserved
dismissal.

8. It is admitted position of fact
between the parties that with the service of
notice dated 13.04.2015 and institution of
suit for eviction by the respondent landlord,
the tenant petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.
8,000/- vide challan on 30.09.2015 while in
the notice/ summons issued, the date fixed
for
appearance
of
the
parties
was
12.10.2015. So on the very first date of his
appearance the tenant-petitioner deposited
an amount of Rs. 8,000/- which was
claimed to be towards the rent damages,
interest, Advocate fee etc. It is admitted to
the parties that as per plaint allegations, to
be specific vide para 6 thereof, agreed
monthly rent of the demised premises was
Rs. 80.

9. It is also not disputed by the
respondent that the arrears due to be paid
were with effect from 1.04.2013 till the
filing of the suit and the suit was instituted
vide presentation of plaint in the month of
August, 2015. So the amount that became
due to be paid to the landlord at the
instance of the tenant petitioner was with
effect from 1.4.2013 till month of August
2015. Consequently period consisting 28
months and a few days approximately the
monthly rent would have come to Rs.
28x80=2240/- .

10. Now arises the dispute. As per
the plaint case the amount due with effect
from 1.4.2013 towards the arrears of rent
@ Rs. 80 per month but with the issuance
of notice and for want of deposit under
Section 30 (1) of Act No. 13 of 1972, the
tenant petitioner became liable to pay
damages @ of Rs. 200 as was claimed in
the plaint and that was how the total arrears
accrued to be paid accounted for Rs.
20,131/- and the relief was accordingly set
in plaint.

11.
In
the
written
statement
plaintiff's claim for damages at the rate of
Rs. 200 per day was denied. So in the event
damages are taken to be as per the claim,
the deposit would certainly fall short of a
huge amount but in the event damages are
taken to be at par with rent on monthly
basis, then the amount of Rs. 8,000 that
was deposited would be more than the
amount the landlord deserved. So the core
issue that required determination by the
Court was as to what should be the amount
of damages that the tenant was liable to
pay.
2 All. Mahendra Kumar Jain Vs. Mohammad Imran & Anr.
71
12. The law is well settled on the
point that damages required to be paid
under Section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972,
should be at the rate of rent agreed between
the parties. In the case of Kashi Nath
(supra) it was held that rent and damages
that are required to be deposited to avail
statutory benefit under Section 20 (4)
would be a factor dependent upon final
verdict in a case as to the quantum of rent
and the tenant cannot be denied benefit
merely on the ground that the rent and
damages as claimed by landlord were not
paid. Thus, in the event landlord demands a
larger amount in respect of arrears of rent
and damages, it is court's final findings
both as to rent and damages that would be a
determining
factor.
In
the
case
of
Mahendra Pratap Garg v. Smt Vijay
Lakshmi General 1983 (1) ARC 74 vide
paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
the court has extensively deliberated on this
issue and laid down law accordingly. These
very paragraphs are reproduced hereunder.

"12. Clause (a) of Section 3(1) of
the Rent Control Act, 1947 was similar to
clause (a) of Section 20 (2) of the present
Rent Control Act, Interpreting this Clause
in the 1947 Act, a Division Bench of this
Court in Lal Manohar Lal's case held that
the amount of arrears of rent mentioned in
the notice of demand need not be exact
amount found due on the date of the notice
by the Court in case the amount is
contested on behalf of the defendant. The
tenant is called upon to pay the arrears of
rent, which, in the first instance, means the
amount mentioned in the notice. If the
tenant does not admit the correctness of
that amount and does not like to pay the
full amount, there seems to be no reason
why he should not pay at least such amount
as he considers to be due. If he makes such
a payment he safeguards his position and
the fault would be entirely the landlord's if
he goes to Court seeking eviction of the
tenant. He will fail in his suit if the tenant
succeeds in satisfying the Court that he had
paid up the arrears of rent due, even
though the demand was for a larger
amount. The plaintiff will succeed if the
tenant fails to establish that and the
plaintiff succeeds in establishing that in
spite of what the tenant had paid some
amount of arrears of rent still remained
due after one month of the service of notice.
 13. The legislature must be
deemed to have accepted this interpretation
because it has re-enacted clause (a) of
Section 20 (2) of the present Act in the
same terms.

14. In order to defeat a suit for
ejectment, it is not necessary for the tenant
to comply with the demand of the landlord
as mentioned in the notice of demand. If he
pays the correct amount which may be
found due in case of a dispute, the suit for
ejectment will fail.

15. Sub-section (4), Section 20
gives another occasion to the defendant to
save his tenancy. It does not insist that the
tenant should pay the amount demanded by
the landlord in the suit. It asks the tenant to
pay the amount due together with interest
and costs. The payment, tender or deposit
should be unconditional. An unconditional
deposit made under sub-section (4) has to
be paid out to the landlord forthwith. The
payment of the unconditional deposit in
under sub-section (6) without prejudice to
the parties' pleadings and further is subject
to the ultimate decision in the suit. The
clear intent is that if the tenant pays or
deposits the amount due a decree for
ejectment should not be passed. Subsection (6) makes it clear that irrespective
of the tenant unconditionally depositing the
amount due and the same being paid to the
landlord the pleadings of the parties
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remain operative. The suit is liable to go on
if the pleadings raise triable issues. The
payment has been made subject to the
decision, namely, the findings. The payment
of the unconditional deposit to the landlord
is without prejudice to the parties'
pleadings, i.e, the pleadings of both the
parties are protected or safeguarded. By
receiving payment of the unconditional
deposit a landlord does not compromise his
pleadings. The payment of the deposit does
not imply any admission by the landlord of
any part of the tenant's case. The same
should be tenant's fate. The making of the
payment, tender or deposit cannot have any
impact or effect on the tenant's pleadings.

16. Under sub-section (6) the
payment of the unconditional deposit is
subject to the decision of the suit. The
payment is thus tentative. The landlord
cannot finally appropriate the amount
paid to him in fulfilment of his claimed
rights. The payment does not have the
effect of admission of liability by the
tenant. The rights and liabilities of the
parties are to be determined by the Court.
The payment of the unconditional deposit
will be subject to the findings of the Court.
The fate and the sufficiency of the
payment of the unconditional deposit will
depend on the decision of the suit. In case
of dispute, the findings of the Court will
determine the rights and liabilities of the
parties.

17. If the landlord succeed in
establishing his claim the Court will see
whether the amount deposited by the
tenant was in accordance with the
landlord's claim. If the amount deposited
was sufficient, the Court will not pass a
decree for ejectment. But if it was
insufficient sub-section (4) of Section 20
will be no avail to the tenant not because it
was conditional but on the ground that the
deposit was sufficient and not of the entire
amount due. On the other hand, if the
tenant succeeds in establishing his case,
the Court will equally see whether the
deposit made by him at the first hearing
was correct, in accordance with the
findings. The fact that the landlord had
made an exaggerated claim will not help
in getting a decree for ejectment.

18. The submission that the
deposit to be unconditional must be in
acknowledgement of liability as claimed by
the landlord will render sub-section (6) of
superfluous and otiose

19. Under the law of contract,
making payment or tender after stating the
accounts or under protest is no more than
saying that the payment is offered as
believed to be due by the person making the
payment
or
reserving
the
right
of
contesting the justice of the claim without
prejudice to the making of the payment. In
all such cases the person who makes the
payment does not impose any condition on
payment. The payment in unconditional. In
such cases the creditor can taken the
payment on that footing and say, " I take
the money, protest as much as you please.
"" and neither party makes any admission
of the claim in the other. A. Acott v.
Uxbridge and Rickmansworth R. Co. A
person making a tender has a right to
exclude presumptions against himself by
saying, " I pay it as a whole that is due."
But if the requires the other party to accept
it as all that is due, that is imposing a
condition. (I) Bowen v. Owan, (ii) Sati
Prasad v. Monmothd Nath, (iii) Bank of
Mysore v. B.D. Noidu.

20 In our opinion, the term
'unconditional' has bee used in Section 20
(4) in a similar sense. If a tenant makes a
deposit but, at the same time, states that the
amount is not to be paid out to the landlord
unless he accepts it in full discharge of the
liability, that would be imposing a
2 All. Mahendra Kumar Jain Vs. Mohammad Imran & Anr.
73
condition. Or, it the tenant says that the
amount deposited by him should be kept in
deposit and should not be paid out till the
decision of the suit, that will make the
deposit conditional. But taking divergent
pleas in the written statement as to the
extent or quantum of liability to pay rent
does not make the deposit conditional. The
purpose of the deposit is to pay it to the
landlord 'forthwith' (See sub Section (6) ).
The deposit is to be unconditional in the
sense that there be no impediment or
condition to its immediate payment."
(emphasis added)

12. It is relying upon the said
judgment of the Division bench that the
Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the Case
of Kashi Nath (supra) vide paragraphs 70,
71, 72, and 73 has held thus:

"70. In view of this decision, it is
evident that even if the landlord claim a
larger amount in respect of arrears of rent
and damages while the tenant deposits such
amount which amount is due according to
the tenant, and the Court ultimately accepts
the version of the tenant, then too the
tenant would be entitled to the benefit of
Section 20 (4) of the Act. In other words,
the tenant is not required to deposit the
arrears of rent and damages as claimed by
the landlord in the suit, and the tenant may
deposit such rent and damages as are in
arrears according to the tenant and in case
the Court ultimately accepts the version of
the tenant then too the tenant would be
entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of
the Act.

71. Hence, it follows that for
getting benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act,
the amount in respect of rent and damages
is required to deposited at the rate of rent
which is ultimately determined by the Court
in its final decision, and not at the rate as
claimed by the landlord in the suit.

72. The said decision of the
Division bench in Mahendra Pratap Garg
case (supra) was affirmed by their
Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt.
Vijai Laxmi Gangal case (supra)

73. It is thus evident that the
determination of the first item regarding
"the entire amount of rent and damages for
use and occupation" for the purpose of
Section 20 (4) would be done on the basis
of the findings ultimately recorded by the
Court regarding the rate of rent and
regarding the amount of arrears due from
the tenant."
(emphasis added)

13. The said coordinate bench
thereafter in the said very case of Kashi
Nath proceeded to consider the required
deposit under Section 20 (4) qua the
interest and held that interest would be
payable upon the entire arrears towards rent
and damages. Vide paragraph 76 the court
held thus:

"76. Coming now to the second
item, which is required to be deposited
under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the
Act, namely, interest at the rate of 9% per
annum, it is evident from a perusal of
Section 20 (4) of the Act that the interest at
the rate of 9% per annum is to be deposited
on the entire amount of rent and damages
for use and occupation of the building due
from the tenant (such damages for use and
occupation being calculated at the same
rate as rent). As noted above, for deciding
whether the tenant is entitled to the benefit
of Section 20 (4) of the Act, the amount of
rent and damages as ultimately determined
by the Court would be taken into
consideration and not the amount claimed
by the landlord in the suit in respect of rent
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and damages. Therefore, for the purpose of
deposit under Section 20 (4) of the Act, the
amount of interest would also be calculated
on the amount of rent and damages as
ultimately determined by the Court, and not
damages. The amount of rent/ damages
required to be deposited by the petitioner
(defendant) for getting the benefit of
Section 20(4) of the Act, as noted above,
would come to Rs. 250/- hence, interest at
the rate of 9% per annum would be
determined on the said amount of Rs. 250"
(emphasis added)

15. The Court in the said case of
Kahsi Nath further proceeded to examine
the question of cost and referred to the
judgment of another single judge in the
case of Gopal Yadav v. Special Judge
(Anti Corruption)/ Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Varanasi and others 2002
(1) ARC 197, the Court held that tenant
was required to deposit actual cost incurred
by the plaintiff in the suit. The Court
referred to the relevant paragraphs of the
Gopal Yadav case which I consider to be
necessary to reproduce here as well para 8,
14, 16, 17 and 18 are reproduce hereunder:

 "8. The question for consideration
of this Court is as to whether, the cost of suit,'
apart from other include (i) actual amount of
Court fee paid by the plaintiff, and (ii) 1⁄2
Counsel fee on a contested suit ( as submitted
by learned Counsel for the landlordrespondent) or the amount of Court fee which
would have been payable on the basis of the
'rate of rent' pleaded by the Defendant in the
written statement (and, after parties have
lead evidence, Court finally found to be
correct).

14. The legislature has used the
expression .." Landlord's costs of the suit..."
and that if avoided to use expression "which
would have been finally found payable' or "
which should have been finally found to be
payable on the reliefs granted by the Court."

16. In my considered opinion
aforesaid aimed to confer provision is not
solely benefit upon 'tenant' only but to confer
benefit upon both landlord and tenant.
Secondly this Court cannot do violence with
given statutory provision while interpreting it
and particularly when there is no for
ambiguity
in
the
language
requiring
interpretation.

17. Perusal of the impugned
judgment and order, with reference to the
charts ananexed with the writ petition as
Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition, clearly
shows that considerable amount of Court Fee
as well as half lawyers on taxable side and
clerkage have not been deposited by the
tenant-Petitioner.

18. It is abundantly clear that
tenant has not deposited the required
amount towards "landlords", costs of suit
contemplated under Section 20 (4) of the
Act and, therefore, he cannot claim benefit
to Section 20 (4) of the Act and protect,
himself
form
eviction
from
the
accommodation in question.

15. I now proceed to refer the
judgment in the case of State Bank of
India v. Shankar Dayal Agarwal (supra)
wherein
I
found
that
court
very
categorically held that damages were to be
awarded at par with monthly rate of rent
only in those cases where Act No. 13 of
1972 was applicable. The Court while
holding so relied upon the judgemnt in the
case of Sushil Sharma Vs. VIII Additional
District Judge, Ghaziabad 2001 ARC page
458. Relevant paragraph of the said
judgment is reproduced hereunder:

" 9. The last submission of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he
rate of rent was Rs. 1450/- and the Court
2 All. Mahendra Kumar Jain Vs. Mohammad Imran & Anr.
75
has awarded damages at the rate of Rs.
2000/- per month. The Courts below have
recorded concurrent findings that the house
in question is not governed by the
provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In
case the accommodation is governed by the
Act, the damages was to be awarded at the
rate of rent but if the Act is not applicable
the damages can be awarded at the market
rate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on the decision Union
of India v. Smt. Urmila Rani Gaur and
others, 1983 (2) ARC 304, wherein it was
held that the damages should be awarded
at the rate of rent and not higher than that.
This was a case where the accommodation
was governed under the provisions of U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972"

17. In the case of Ramesh Kumar
Sachdeva (supra) another coordinate bench
has held that damages should be at par with
the rate of rent.

18. Now applying the above legal
position I proceed to examine as to whether
deposit made by the tenant petitioner on or
before the first date of hearing was
sufficient to entitle him to statutory benefit
of Section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972. In
order to test the sufficiency of deposit made
under Section 20 (4) of the Act No. 13 of
1972 by
the
petitioner,
it
becomes
necessary to refer to Section 20 (4) of act
No. 13 of 1972. The relevant provisions are
reproduced hereunder:

 "(4) In any suit for eviction on
the ground mentioned in Clause (a) of subsection (2), if at the first hearing of the suit
the tenant unconditionally pays or [tenders
to the landlord or deposits in Court] the
entire amount of rent and damages for use
and occupation of the building due from
him (such damages for use and occupation
being calculated at the same rate as rent)
together with interest thereon at the rate of
nine per cent per annum and the landlord's
costs of the suit in respect thereof, after
deducting therefrom any amount already
deposited by the tenant under sub-section
(1) of Section 30, the Court may, in lieu of
passing a decree for eviction on that
ground, pass an order relieving the tenant
against his liability for eviction on that
ground:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply in relation to a tenant
who or any member of whose family has
built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant
state, or has got vacated after acquisition,
any residential building in the same city,
municipality, notified area or town area

[Explanation- for the purposes of
this sub-section-

(a) the expression 'first hearing'
means the first date for any step or
proceeding mentioned in the summons
served on the defendant;

(b) the expression 'cost of the
suit' includes one-half of the amount of
Counsel's fee taxable for a contested suit.]
(emphasis added)

19. From a bare reading of the
aforesaid provision, it is clear that the
tenant upon suit being instituted for non
payment of rent, is required to deposit rent
and damages both for use and occupation
of building and that too in its entirety but
the damages are to be calculated at the
same rate as rent together with their interest
at the rate of 9% per annum and the cost of
the suit that may have accrued to the
landlord. This is rightly argued by Ms.
Smriti Gupta, learned Advocate appearing
for respondent that provision is silent about
the period for which damages is to be
charged and in what manner. But the words
and expression 'entire amount of rent and
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
damages' with further qualification that
damages would be at the same rate as rent,
per judgment in Mahendra Pratap Garg
(supra), a natural corollary would be that
damages would be charged in the same
manner as the rent. Rent is charged on
monthly basis, therefore, in my considered
view the damages should be charged on
monthly basis unless and until the court
holds it otherwise. From the view taken in
the case of Kashi Nath (supra) it is now
well settled that benefit under Section 20
(4) cannot be denied to the tenant merely
for not depositing the amount of rent and
damages at the rate claimed by landlord. It
becomes clear that if the court holds that
damages are payable on day to day basis in
a particular case, the tenant cannot be
denied benefit for having deposited the rent
on monthly basis at par with the rent. As I
have already discussed above that the total
arrears that accrued on the date of
institution of suit in the month of August
2015 was for a period 28 months and a few
days and the agreed rent was Rs. 80. Thus,
total arrears if calculated 28x80 comes to
Rs. 2,240 Now the question arises what
should be the damages.

20. The argument advanced by Ms.
Smriti Gupta that a tenant would become
trespassers does not appeal to reason for
two counts: firstly, the Act No. 13 of 1972
aimed at protecting the tenant who is
possession of the property for having been
inducted as tenant in the premises on
agreed rent so, just because he is in arrears
of rent, he does not become unauthorized
occupant, nor does act reduce him to such a
status. This is for the reason that statutory
benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act No.
13 of 1972 gives an edge to the tenant over
and above the pleadings of the landlord
asking for eviction of the tenant. And
secondly, the Act in the event of release
being
allowed,
still
gives
statutory
protection to tenant under Section 20(4) of
the Act No. 13 of 1972 to be reinducted as
tenant in the eventuality of a third party
rent agreement being entered in the same
premises by the landlord.

21. The tenant, has been vested
with the statutory right to move an
application for entry as tenant in the
premises for the conduct of the landlord in
not using the released premises for personal
need and letting it out to a third party or
even in the event after reconstruction takes
place upon building being released under
Section 21 (1) (b), the same is ready for
being let out again.

22. Thus, in view of the above, the
cases of release and eviction under Act No.
13 of 1972 are to be taken differently from
those cases where the leases expire and
landlords became entitled to terminate
tenancy with issuance of notice under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
1872. Accordingly the argument advanced
by Ms. Smriti Gupta, learned Advocate
appearing for landlord to the effect that
tenant would be in such a case a trespasser
to hold him liable to pay damages on day to
day basis for such unauthorized occupancy
of the premises, is hereby rejected.

23. Now applying the above legal
position as discussed and analysed and
finally held, I proceed to examine and test
the findings of the trial court as to
sufficiency of deposit made by petitioner
under Section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972.

24. Now the rate of damages if
assessed as Rs. 80 per month as I find to be
justified in view of the legal position as
discussed above, the amount would come
to the same as the arrears of rent so both if
2 All. Mahendra Kumar Jain Vs. Mohammad Imran & Anr.
77
added together it comes to Rs. 4480/-The
interest is to be calculated at the rate of 9%.
No taxes were liable to be paid as no
pleading has been raised in the plaint
therefore, rent would be taken to have
included the taxes. The question now,
therefore, remains to be answered as to
what would be the amount of interest and
then the cost . The interest is to be
calculated at the rate of 9%pa upon Rs.
4480/- would come Rs. 403.20 plus cost for
instituting the suit would be the court fee
which plaintiff must have paid for the
recovery of sum of Rs. 4883.20 and
according to Court Fee Act that court fee,
the landlord was liable to pay for recovery
of said sum of amount would have been not
more than a thousand rupees and if Rs.
1500 is also taken as charges of notice
which the petitioner was not entitled to pay
even then the total amount required to be
deposited falls short of Rs. 8,000/-

25. In the entire judgemnt of the
trial court, I do not find there to be any
determination of or reference to the cost of
the suit and exactly what damages tenant
was liable to pay. Findings returned are
that the demanded rate of rent and
damages have not been paid. Merely
because the tenant could not exactly say
what would be the amount or rate of rent
at current market value, the trial court was
not justified in holding that the deposit
made fell short of the requisite deposit.
Since the findings are not there about the
rate of damages which petitioner would
have been liable to pay as per the legal
position discussed and there being no
determination as to costs etc., nor there
being discussion to that effect, the
findings by trial court to deny statutory
benefit to the petitioner under Section 20
(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 are clearly
unsustainable.
26. The court of appeal has simply
rejected the deposit made on the ground
that form 18C did not disclose under
which head the deposit had been made.
Had the court correctly applied the law
as discussed above, it would have
easily calculated the amount and if the
deposit made fell short of the requisite
deposit, then the court could have
calculated very easily how much it fell
short. The deposit could not have been
rejected only on the ground that the
challan form did not disclose the
various heads in which the deposits
were made.

27. Thus, the judgment and decree
passed by the Judge Small Causes in SCC
Suit No. 17 of 2015 dated 29.09.2021 and
the judgemt and order passed by revisional
court/ Additional District Judge, Court No.
4, Jhansi dated 12.04.2023 in SCC
Revision No. 33 of 2021 are hereby set
aide.

28. Petitioner is held entitled to the
benefit under Section 20 (4) of Act No. 13
of 1972 for having made requisite deposit
and, hence, the suit for recovery of arrears
of rent and damages brought by landlord
respondent is hereby dismissed.

29.
Petitioner
shall
however
continue to pay rent as agreed but liberty
rests with the landlord respondent to apply
for agreement in writing as per Section 4 of
Act No. 16 of 2021.

30. There shall be no adjustment of
the deposit already made by petitioner
under the interim order of this Court as that
was only a condition for stay and the said
amount if not released, shall be released in
favour of landlord.
----------
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 2 ILRA 78
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 7467 of 2021

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Shradha Padmaja Awasthi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prasoon Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dhruv Kumar

Civil Law- The Constitution of India,1950Article 227 - Insurance Regulatory and
Development
Authority
(Protection
of
Policyholders Interest) Regulations, 2002Regulations 3 & 4 - The Insurance Act,
1938-Sections-42, 45(3) & (4)---Petition
challenging award to pay compensation along
with interest---The person who solicits and
negotiates a contract of insurance shall be
'deemed for the purpose of the formation of the
contract, to be the agent of the insurer'--- Entire
case of the Insurance Company was based upon
the repudiation of contract of insurance on the
basis of misSt.ment and suppression of material
facts. The said ground is not available to be
pleaded by the petitioner in view of noncompliance of Clause 3 and Clause 4 of the
IRDA Regulations, non-refund of the premium
collected as prescribed under second proviso to
Section 45 (4) and the Insurer not discharging
the burden as prescribed under Section 45(4)
and also not considering the fact that the
Insurer had pleaded that the alleged misSt.ment
or suppression was without any deliberate
intention, even if it is presumed for the sake of
argument that the contract was repudiated on
the ground of fraud as prescribed under Section
45(3) of the Insurance Act.
Petition dismissed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance
Comp. Ltd. & ors. Vs Dalbir Kaur: Civil Appeal
No.3397 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C)
No.10652 of 2020, decided on 09.10.2020

2. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. Vs
Rakhaben Nareshbhai Rathod: Civil Appeal
No.4261 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C)
No.14312 of 2015, decided on 24.04.2019

3. Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs New India
Assurance Company Ltd.: 2009 AIR SCW 7213

4. P.C. Chacko & anr. Vs Chairman, Life
Insurance Corporation of India & ors.: Appeal
(Civil) No.5322 of 2007 decided on 20.11.2007

5. M/s Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tata AIG
General Insurance Company Ltd. & ors.; Civil
Appeal No.8249 of 2022 arising out of SLP
(Civil) No.25457 of 2019, decided on 09.11.2022

6. Saurashtra Chemicals Vs National Insurance
Company Ltd.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prasoon Srivastava,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Dhruv Kumar, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent no.1. None
appears for opposite party no.2.

2. The present application under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed challenging an award dated
21.12.2020 passed by the Permanent Lok
Adalat, Lucknow in Case No.06 of 2017
(Smt. Padmaja Awasthi vs Bajaj Allianz
Life Insurance Company Limited and
another), whereby, the complaint filed by
the respondent no.1 was allowed and the
petitioner
was
directed
to
pay
compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Lac Only) along with interest @ 9%