Noticeably, the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents had admitted the tenancy under Smt. Chameli Devi. He has admitted as well that during her lifetime, rent used to be paid to her and thereafter her elder son, Bhola Nath, father of the Appellants used to receive the rent. It is his pleaded case that as was the arrangement, he paid rent to Bhola Nath upto September, 1979, whereafter he refused to accept the same. Incidentally, even assuming that the plea of the original Defendant of having paid rent to Bhola Nath up to September, 1989 is correct (the allegation of the Appellants is that the default is from October, 1979), the default from October 1989 is incidentally subsequent to the compromise decree, as afore-mentioned whereunder the sons of Bhola Nath and Bachan Lal were held to be the owners of the suit premises. It is a matter of record that the Appellants by notice dated 19.08.1989 had demanded from the original Defendant the arrears of rent from October, 1979 which was admittedly received by him but not acted upon. In spite thereof, according to the original Defendant, he offered rent to Bhola Nath for the months of October, 1989 to January, 1990 by remitting the same by money-orders and on the alleged refusal thereof, eventually deposited the rent in court Under Section 30.
30. In view of the categorical disclosure in the notice dated 18.08.1989, issued on behalf of the Appellants, requiring payment of rent in arrears to them as the landlords and also indicating determination of tenancy in case of failure in payment, we are of the view that the so called offer of rent for the months of October, 1989 to January, 1990 to Bhola Nath by money-orders and thereafter deposit in Court Under Section 30 of the Act would be of no avail to the original Defendant and on his death, the present Respondents. The original Defendant in terms of the aforementioned notice was fully aware of the compromise decree and the status of the Appellants as the joint owners/landlords and thus his offer of rent to Bhola Nath, who ceased to be the landlord, was not in compliance either of Sub-section 4 of Section 20 or Section 30 of the Act to be availed as a defence against his/their eviction from the suit premises. The original Defendant and consequently the Respondents has/have therefore rendered himself/themselves as defaulters within the meaning of the Act and are liable to be evicted thereunder. It is more so as admittedly neither the original Defendant nor the Respondents had ever endeavoured to offer rent to the Appellants after the compromise decree dated 05.04.89.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 4309 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17414 of 2015).
Decided On: 21.03.2017
Om Prakash and Ors.Vs. Mishri Lal (dead) represented by his LR. Savitri Devi and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, JJ.
Citation: (2017) 5 SCC 451
Print Page
30. In view of the categorical disclosure in the notice dated 18.08.1989, issued on behalf of the Appellants, requiring payment of rent in arrears to them as the landlords and also indicating determination of tenancy in case of failure in payment, we are of the view that the so called offer of rent for the months of October, 1989 to January, 1990 to Bhola Nath by money-orders and thereafter deposit in Court Under Section 30 of the Act would be of no avail to the original Defendant and on his death, the present Respondents. The original Defendant in terms of the aforementioned notice was fully aware of the compromise decree and the status of the Appellants as the joint owners/landlords and thus his offer of rent to Bhola Nath, who ceased to be the landlord, was not in compliance either of Sub-section 4 of Section 20 or Section 30 of the Act to be availed as a defence against his/their eviction from the suit premises. The original Defendant and consequently the Respondents has/have therefore rendered himself/themselves as defaulters within the meaning of the Act and are liable to be evicted thereunder. It is more so as admittedly neither the original Defendant nor the Respondents had ever endeavoured to offer rent to the Appellants after the compromise decree dated 05.04.89.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 4309 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17414 of 2015).
Decided On: 21.03.2017
Om Prakash and Ors.Vs. Mishri Lal (dead) represented by his LR. Savitri Devi and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, JJ.
Citation: (2017) 5 SCC 451
