# Smt.Shanti Devi and others v. Ayodhya Nath Dubey and another

- **Citation:** (1999) 1 ILRA 193
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-03-27
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shanti-devi-and-others-v-ayodhya-nath-dubey-and-another-39094
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 193
in the writ petition. Therefore, the respondents are hereby expected
to make available all retiral benefits as are admissible in law to the
petitioner including arrears and current pension, if payable together
with all other service retirement benefits as early as possible
preferably within a ;period of six months from the date a copy of this
order is communicated to the respondents.

'Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for
the petitioner on paymnent of usual charges in the ordinary course.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6
&,9,/ 6,'(
,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
:ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
$\RGK\D 1DWK 'XEH\
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
;,,,WK $'- .DQSXU 1DJDU DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU
 6UL .. 7ULSDWKL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
 6&
83 8UEDQ %XLOGLQJ 5HJXODWLRQ RI /HWWLQJ 5HQW DQG (YLFWLRQ $FW
26HFWLRQ
20HDQLQJ
RI
ZRUGV
3QRWLFH
LQ
ZULWLQJ ́
H[SODLQHG
5HVWULFWHG PHDQLQJ FDQ QRW EH JLYHQ WR 31RWLFH LQ ZULWLQJ ́ ,W GRHV
QRW PHDQ D VHSDUDWH QRWLFH E\ WKH ODQG ORUG 7KH QRWLFH PD\ EH D
JLYHQ E\ VXEPLWWLQJ DQ REMHFWLRQ LQ WKDW SURFHHGLQJ RU LQ DQ\ RWKHU
PDQQHU E\ ZKLFK WKH WHQDQW FRPHV WR NQRZ WKDW WKH ODQG ORUG KDV
H[SUHVVHG KLV ZLOOLQJQHVV WR DFFHSW WKH UHQW 3DUD
&DVHV UHIIHUHG
$,5 $OOG UHOLHG XSRQ
 -5- GLVWLQJXLVKHG
1998
------
November, 16
194 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
%\ WKH &RXUW

(1) This writ petition is directed against the judgement of the Judge
Small Causes Court dated 27.3.1998 whereby the suit for ejectment
against the petitioner was decreed and the order of the revisional
court dated 3.11.1998 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid
judgement.

(2) The land lord-respondents no. 3 and 4 filed suit no./ 380 of 1983,
Smt.Shanti Devi and others Vs. Ayodhya Nath Dubey and another,
against the petitioner and one Vishwanath for recovery of arrears of
rent , ejectment ;and damages on the allegation that the petitioner
was their tenant. He was in arrears of rent for the period 25.8.1977 to
24.2.1983 . The plaintiff-respondents sent com;posite notice on
3.3.1983 to the defendant-petitioner demanding arrears of rent and
terminating his tenancy. The notice was served by refusal on
10.3.1983, The petitioner did not pay arrears of rent as demanded by
the plaintiffs. It was further stated that the petitioner had sub-let the
accommodation in question to Anil Kumar, defendant no. 2.

(3) The petitioner filed written statement. He alleged that the
landlords have refused to accept the rent and thereafter he made
deposits under section 30 of U.P.Urban Buildings ( Regulation of
letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act). He denied that he sub-let the disputed accommodation to the
defendant no. 2 . He also denied that he received any notice sent by
the plaintiff-respondents. The trial court recorded a finding that the
petitioner was served with a notice but he failed pay; the arrears of
rent as demanded by the plaintiffs. The deposits made by himj under
section 30 of the Act was invalid. The suit was decreed on these
findings. The main thrust of the submission of; the learned counsel
for the petitioner is; that the petitioner had deposited the rent under
section 30 of the Act and such deposit was illegally held as invalid.

(4) Admittedly the petitioner deposited the rent under section 30 of
the Act on 14.9.1977 for ;the period 25.11.1975 to 24.8.1977
amounting to Rs. 131.25. He thereafter deposited the rent for the
period 25.8.1977 to 24.3.1978 on 4.3.1988. On the deposit being
made a notice was issued to the plaintiff-respondents. They filed
objection on 24.2.1978 stating that they had never refused to accept
the rent from the petitioner and secondly they are always prepared to
accept the rent. The Munsif City passed an order that the applicant
(petitioner) is allowed to continue to deposit the rent at his own risk.
1998
------
A.N.Dubey
 Vs.
XIIIth A.D.
& S.J., Kanpur
& others
------
Sudhir
Narain, J.
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 195
The petitioner thereafter continued to deposit the rent under section
30(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
once the petitioner had deposited the amount under section 30(1) of
the Act and was permitted to continue to deposit the rent, such
deposit should be treated as valid unless the land lord in the
meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness
to accept it. Section 30(1) of the Act reads as under :-

"If any person claiming to be a tenant of a building tenders any
amount as rent in respect of the building to its alleged land lord and
the alleged land lord 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 land lord in the meantime
signifiesby notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept
it,."

5. This section coantemplates that the tenant can make deposit under
section 30(1) of the Act when the land lord refuses to accept the rent
and if he hasa refused to accept the rent the tenant will be justified in
depositing the rent in court unless the land lord signifies his
willingness in writing for accepting the rent. The petitioner was
bound to prove that the land lords had refused to accept the rent
which caused him to deposit ;kthe ;amount under sec tion 30(1) of
the Act. The petitioner failed to prove this fact. Secondly, when the
petitioner made deposit under section 30(1) of the Act and on a
notice issued to the land lord-respondents, they submitted an
objection categorically stating that they never refused to accept rent
and further they were always prepared to accept it. The willingness
was clearly indicated in the objection filed by athe land lords. It was
not necessary for the land lords to give a separate notice in writing to
the tenant-petitioner.

(6) The notice to the tenant of willingness of land lord to accept the
rent in a proceeding under section 30 of; the Act may be in any form.
The words "notice in wrriting" under section 30(1) of the Act cannot
be given a restricted meaning as to give a separate notice by the land
lord. The notice may be given by submitting an objection in that
proceeding or in any other manner by which the tenant comes to
know that the land lord has expressed his willingness to accept the
;rent. The deposit under section 30 contemplates that the land lord
has refused to accept the rent but once the land lord has expressed his
1998
------
A.N.Dubey
 Vs.
XIIIth A.D.
& S.J., Kanpur
& others
------
Sudhir
Narain, J.
196 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
willingness to accept the rent,; there is no justification for the tenant
thereafter to deposit the rent under section 30 of the Act.

(7) In Mohammadoo Khan Vs. Ghulam Rasool, AIR 1972 Alld. 441,
the Court held that that where the land lord gives notice demanding
arrears of rent and after service of such notice if the tenant continues
to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act that deposit is
invalid as the land lord, by demanding the rent, has expressed his
willingness to accept the rent.

(8) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliane upon the
decision Sobran Singh Vs. Prakash Chandra Gupta, 1996 JRJ 471,
wherein the Court remanded the case to find out as to whether the
land lord had signified the willingness to accept the rent. This case
has no application to the facts of the present case. The tenant must
first prove that at any point of time the land-lord has refused to
accept the rent and if it is found that the land-lord has refused to
accept the rent he is entitled to deposit the rent under section 30(1) of
the Act until the land lord in the meantime signifies by notice in
writing to the tenant his willingness to accept it.

(9) As found above the land lord never refused to accept the rent and;
further on deposit being made by the petitioner they made it clear by
filing objection that they prepared to accept the rent, the question of
further notice being given by them did not arise and the deposit made
by the petitioner under section 30 of the Act was invalid.

(10) In view of the above there is no merit in the writ petition. It is
accordingly dismissed.
1998
------
A.N.Dubey
 Vs.
XIIIth A.D.
& S.J., Kanpur
& others
------
Sudhir
Narain, J.
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 197
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '3 02+$3$75$ &-
7+( +21·%/( '3 02+$3$75$ &-
7+( +21·%/( 3$/2. %$68 -
7+( +21·%/( 3$/2. %$68 -
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
:ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
9. %DQHUMHH
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU
 6UL $PLW %RVH
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
 6&
 6UL 53 *RHO
 6UL $VKRN 0HKWD
83 3XEOLF 6HUYLFHV 5HVHUYDWLRQ IRU 6FKHGXOHG &DVWHV 6FKHGXOHG
7ULEHV DQG RWKHUEDFN ZDUG FODVVHV $FW 26HFWLRQ 2*2
GDWHG 2,QFUHDVLQJ UHVHUYDWLRQ TXRWD LQ SURYLVLRQ LQ
IDYRXU RI 6FKHGXOHG &DVWHV FDQGLGDWHV IURP WR LV YDOLG
3DUD
 6&& UHOLHG XSRQ

By The Court

1. A Division Bench consisting of one of us looking to the
importance of the question raised, has on 10.11.1994 opined that a
larger bench be constituted and this is how under the orders of the
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this bench is seized with the matter.

2. The question formulated in the interim order passed by the
Division Bench may have been more relevant on that date but the
subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court on the issues
arising do not leave much scope for the petitioner to argue because
Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision which has come in the meantime
in Ashok Kumar Gupta and another versus State of U.P. and others
1998
------
December, 4