# BRAHMAN AND v. SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI & ANR

- **Citation:** [1977] 3 S.C.R. 485
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-04-11
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, R. S. Sarkaria, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/brahman-and-v-smt-kaushalya-devi-anr-7177
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A
Eviction on the ground of arrears of rent-Tenant due to strained relations
B
deposits r,ent in the Court-Whether such deposit shall be deemed that the rent
has been duly paid-United Provirices' (Temporary) Control of Rent and Evie~
tion Act 1947. S. 3(l)(a) rlw. s. 7-C(v) and (6) interpretation of.
Section 3(1)(a) of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and
Eviction Act, 1947, permits ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent when
the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than three months and has failed to pay
the same to the landlord within one month of the service upon him: of a notice
of demand. Section 7-C(l) enables deposits of rent to be made when a landlord
C
refuses to accept 'any rent lawfully paid to him by a tenant ands. 7·C(6) enjoins
that "in any case where a deposit has been made as aforesaid, it shall be deemed
that the rent has been duly paid by the tenant to th.e landlord."
The appellant·tenant had extremely strained relations with
his
landlady
leading to criminal cases. He deposited the rent payable by him in the court
regularly. The triaJ court as well as the High Court, taking the view that such
prompt deposits of rent in the court did not satisfy the provisions of s. 3(1) (a)
D
of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947,
since it is not equivalent to payment of rent to the landlord, granted the ejection
application· filed by the resvondent·landlady.
Allowing the appeal by special leave and remanding the case, the court,
HELD: (1) The construction put by the courts below on s. 7·C is too narrow
and a liberal construction of the.expression "paid to him by a tenant" ins. 7·C
(I) is necessary. [ 487 B-D)
E
(2) A correct interpretation of s. 7 has to be conditioned by the circums·
tances prevailing between the parties. In a situation where not merely bitterness
and friction but potentially violent terms mar the life of the parties, s. 7.c of the
Act has to be read realistically, It is not necessary for the tenant to create a
situation of tension and violence by physically giving the rent into the hands of
the landlord. It is an idle ritual to insist on: a physical tender of payment of rent
where the circumstances make it impracticable. But harassing the landlOrd by
straightaway depositing the rent in court without fulfilment of the conditions
F
required by s. 7-0(1) is also unwarranted. [486 G-H, 487 A, DJ
(3) The expression "where the deposit has been made as aforesaid" ins. 7·C
(6) means that the deposit is permissible only when the condition in s. 7·C(l)
is complied with. If the landlord refuses to accept rent paid to him a deposit
jg permissible but payment need not be by physical tender person to person. It
can be by money order or through messenger or by sending a notice to the
landlord asking him to noniinate_ a bank into which the refits may be regularly
paid to the credit of the lllI!dlord.· If the landlord refuses under these circutnG
stances then a court deposit will be the remedy. In the instant case the courts
below have not considered whether the circumstances which drove the appellant
into the depos·iting of rent in court were such as eliminated the other possibilities
of direct payment. [487 E-F, AJ
Observation
Jt wauld be a far more Sati~f~ctory s_olution of the situation between ~wo
ne_ighQours who have fallen out, if the parties would come to ·terms at the ·gentle
suggestion of :the conrt below as to w)lat it considers just aided b)'. !he activist
H
endeavoilrs of counsel, fhan -a niere adjudication of the pdints of fact and law
riii.00 Which will leave the pat'ties as bitter neighbours. [The court dirocied the
al'POllate court to take the initiative in the matter With a caution to be 1otal!y
non-aligned in the process.] [488 A-BJ
A
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCTION : Civil Appeal No. 711 of 1976.
(Appea'l by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 28-4-1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Second A

## Text

BRAHMAN AND
v.
SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI & ANR.
April 11, 1977
485
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J
A
Eviction on the ground of arrears of rent-Tenant due to strained relations
B
deposits r,ent in the Court-Whether such deposit shall be deemed that the rent
has been duly paid-United Provirices' (Temporary) Control of Rent and Evie~
tion Act 1947. S. 3(l)(a) rlw. s. 7-C(v) and (6) interpretation of.
Section 3(1)(a) of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and
Eviction Act, 1947, permits ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent when
the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than three months and has failed to pay
the same to the landlord within one month of the service upon him: of a notice
of demand. Section 7-C(l) enables deposits of rent to be made when a landlord
C
refuses to accept 'any rent lawfully paid to him by a tenant ands. 7·C(6) enjoins
that "in any case where a deposit has been made as aforesaid, it shall be deemed
that the rent has been duly paid by the tenant to th.e landlord."
The appellant·tenant had extremely strained relations with
his
landlady
leading to criminal cases. He deposited the rent payable by him in the court
regularly. The triaJ court as well as the High Court, taking the view that such
prompt deposits of rent in the court did not satisfy the provisions of s. 3(1) (a)
D
of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947,
since it is not equivalent to payment of rent to the landlord, granted the ejection
application· filed by the resvondent·landlady.
Allowing the appeal by special leave and remanding the case, the court,
HELD: (1) The construction put by the courts below on s. 7·C is too narrow
and a liberal construction of the.expression "paid to him by a tenant" ins. 7·C
(I) is necessary. [ 487 B-D)
E
(2) A correct interpretation of s. 7 has to be conditioned by the circums·
tances prevailing between the parties. In a situation where not merely bitterness
and friction but potentially violent terms mar the life of the parties, s. 7.c of the
Act has to be read realistically, It is not necessary for the tenant to create a
situation of tension and violence by physically giving the rent into the hands of
the landlord. It is an idle ritual to insist on: a physical tender of payment of rent
where the circumstances make it impracticable. But harassing the landlOrd by
straightaway depositing the rent in court without fulfilment of the conditions
F
required by s. 7-0(1) is also unwarranted. [486 G-H, 487 A, DJ
(3) The expression "where the deposit has been made as aforesaid" ins. 7·C
(6) means that the deposit is permissible only when the condition in s. 7·C(l)
is complied with. If the landlord refuses to accept rent paid to him a deposit
jg permissible but payment need not be by physical tender person to person. It
can be by money order or through messenger or by sending a notice to the
landlord asking him to noniinate_ a bank into which the refits may be regularly
paid to the credit of the lllI!dlord.· If the landlord refuses under these circutnG
stances then a court deposit will be the remedy. In the instant case the courts
below have not considered whether the circumstances which drove the appellant
into the depos·iting of rent in court were such as eliminated the other possibilities
of direct payment. [487 E-F, AJ
Observation
Jt wauld be a far more Sati~f~ctory s_olution of the situation between ~wo
ne_ighQours who have fallen out, if the parties would come to ·terms at the ·gentle
suggestion of :the conrt below as to w)lat it considers just aided b)'. !he activist
H
endeavoilrs of counsel, fhan -a niere adjudication of the pdints of fact and law
riii.00 Which will leave the pat'ties as bitter neighbours. [The court dirocied the
al'POllate court to take the initiative in the matter With a caution to be 1otal!y
non-aligned in the process.] [488 A-BJ
A
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCTION : Civil Appeal No. 711 of 1976.
(Appea'l by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 28-4-1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
1719 of 1972)
Yogeshwar Prasad, Miss Rani Arora and Meera
Bali, for the
B
appellant.
c
D
E
F
G
It
S. L. Bhatia a1nd H. K. Puri, for respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J. The defendant-tenant is the appellant and the
appeal is by special leave.
The landlord sued for eiectment on the
ground of arrears of rent as provided in s. 3 of the United Provinces
(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, !947. Section 3(1)
(a) states, among one of the grounds of eviction,
"that the tenant is in arrears, of rent for more than three·
months and has failed to pay the same to the la,ndlord within one month of the service upon him of a notice of
demand."
In the present case, the complaint of the plaintiff was that the
rent was ,not paid but was deposited into court regularly.
The trial
court as well as the High Court took the view that such prompt deposits of rent into· court did not satisfy the provisions of s. 3 ( 1 )(a)
since it is not equivalent to payment of rent to the landlord. Counsel
for the appellant c0ntends thats.
7-C(6) of the Act strikes a
different note.
It reads :
"In any case where a deposit has been made, as aforesaid, it shall be deemed that the rent has been duly paid by
the tenant to the landlord.
(emphasis supplied)"
S. 7-C( 1) enables deposits of rent to be made when a landlord
refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by a tenant.
In the
present case the facts are glaring.
The relations betweein the parties
appears to be. extremely strained and they are living in adjacent premises.
There was a criminal case by the tenant against the landlord
as early as 1969 for offences under ss. 323, 504, 506, 352, 354 and
452 I.P.C.
The case ended in an acquittal but the relations did not
improve. Even now there is a pending prosecution by the tenant
of the landlord for offences of a serious nature.
It. is common ground
that not merely bitterness and friction but potentially violent terms
mar the life of these parties.
In such a situation s. 7-C of the Act
has to be read realistically. It is not
necessary for the tenant to
create a situation of tension· and violence by physically offering the
rent into the hands of the landlord..
We are satisfied that a correct
interpretation of s. 7 has to be concjitioned by the circumstances
prevailing· between the parties. In the case we are concerned With,
the relations between the parties being very estranged it, is an idle
BRAHMANAND v. KAUSHALYA DEVI (Krishna Iyer,!.)
487
ritual to insist on a physical tender of payment of the rent where
the circumstances make it impractical aud, therefor, subject to what
we have said later, prima facie, s. 7-C{l) is attracted and in such
cases s. 7-C( 6) makes court deposit equivalent to payment by the
tenant to the landlord.
Of course, in the absence of special and
adequate grounds the tenant cannot drive the landlord to collect his
re,nt every time through the court with all the attendant inconvenience
and expense.
We consider the construction put by the courts below on s. 7-C
too narrow. The High Court has proceeded on the footing that a deposit under s. 7-C can be made only if the landlord refuses to accept
the rent tendered to him or, if there is any dispute as to the person
who is actually entitled to receive the rent. "Nqne of the conditions
existed in the instant case ... and the plaintiff had asked the defendant 11ot to deposit the rent in court but to pay her the same.
The
defendant was accordingly required to pay the rent to her, not to
deposit the same in court.
The deposit, accordingly, could ,not constitute payment of rent to the plaintiff and the defendant, consequently, was in arrears of rent. .. ".
As we have earlier pointed out, a liberal construction of the expression 'paid to him by a tenant' in s. 7-C ( 1) is pecessary.
Physically offering payment when the relations between the parties are
strained is to ask for trouble and be impractical.
But harassing the
landlord by straightway depositing the rent in court without fulfilment of the conditions required by s. 7-C(l) is also 11nwarranted.
Section 7-C(6) by using the expression 'where the deposit has been
made as aforesaid' takes us back to s. 7-C(l). That is to say, the
deposit is permissible only when the condition in s. 7-C(l) is complied with.
If the landlord refuses to accept rent paid to him a deposit is permissible. But payment need not be by physical tender, person to persqn.
It can be by money order, or through messenger or
by sending a notice to the landlord asking him to nominate a bank
into which the rents may be regularly paid to the credit of the landlord. If the landlord refuses under these circumstances, then a court
deposit will be the remedy.
In the present case, on account of the bad blood between the parties a physical tender of the rent is ruled out.
At the same time the
courts below have not considered Whether the circumstances which
drove the appellant into depositing the rent in court were such as
eliminated the other possibilities of direct payment we have indicated.
It is therefore fair to set aside the finding of the courts below and remand the case to the lower appellate court (which is the final court of
fact under ordinary circumstances) to ascertain whether any of the
alternatives we have indicated, or may otherwise be made out by the
tenant as equivalent to payment of rent, i~ present in the case. If no
such circumstance is made out by the tenant justifying deposit of rent
in court, the decree for eviction will stand.
Otherwise, the petition
for eviction will be dismissed.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
~88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 3 S.C.R.
It may well be that having regard to the fact that the respondent,
the landlady belonging to the weaker sex, has necessarily to live as
adjacent occupant of the appellant, a fairly affluent doctor, and taking
note of the fact that the relations between the parties are so embittered as to lead to criminal cases, it may be furtherance of justice if
the appellate court tries to settle the dispute without taking sides.
If the parties are able to come to terms at the gentle suggestion of the
court as to what it considers just, aided by the activist endeavours
of counsel, it would be a far more satisfactory solution of the situation
between two neighbours who have fa!le1n out than a bare adjudication
of the points of fact and law raised which will leave the pa.rties as
bitter neighbours.
We therefore think it proper to direct the appellate court to take the initiative in the matter but caution it to be
totally non-aligned in the process.
·
With these observations we allow the appeal and remand the case
to the lower appellate court. Parties will bear their own costs upto
now incurred.
s.:a.
Appeal allowed.