Whether court can direct the licensee to pay maintenance charges to the licensor in application U/O 15A of CPC in eviction suit?

The only question to be considered is whether the maintenance charges could have been directed to be paid under Over XV-A of the Code as prayed for by the defendants.

From the aforesaid averments it is clear that the plaintiff has admitted that it is liable to pay maintenance charges of Rs.25,000/- per month during the period of Leave and Licence agreement. As stated above the said agreement specifically refers to various amenities provided by the licensor and with a view to enable the licensee to enjoy the same the plaintiff is required to pay Rs.25,000/- per month.

10. The provisions of Section 7(14) of the said Act define the term "standard rent". The standard rent in the present case has not been determined under Section 8 of the said Act. However reading of both the agreements on the basis of which the plaintiff has been inducted as a licensee indicates that besides the amount of licence fees, it is also liable to pay maintenance charges and failure to pay maintenance charges gives a cause of action to the licensor to terminate the licence.

 In Puspa Sen Gupta vs. Susma Ghose (1990) 2 SCC 651 while considering the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and the question whether the tenant was liable to pay amount of Rs.8/- per month towards electricity besides Rs.32/- as rent, it was observed that the expression "rent" was not defined under relevant Act. However on reading the entire Act, the word "rent" would also include payment in respect of amenities or services provided by the landlord under the term of tenancy. It was observed that considering various provisions a tenancy would carry with it amenities to be provided or services to be maintained by the landlord and hence the amount of rent would include the amount of electricity charges. Drawing support from the aforesaid observations it can be said in the facts of the present case that the plaintiff was liable to pay maintenance charges besides license fees. This has infact been admitted by the plaintiff in its written statement to the counter-claim. In that view of the matter the trial Court was not justified in refusing to direct the plaintiff to pay Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance charges. The impugned order therefore is liable to be modified accordingly.

 Bombay High Court

Daksha  Jyotindra Patel And Vs Big V. Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur ... on 8 November, 2019

Bench: A.S. Chandurkar

  WRIT PETITION NO.3553 OF 2019



CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.

 Judgment pronounced on : November 08, 2019 

Citation: 2020(6) MHLJ 313

Print Page

Whether appellate court can strike off the defence of tenant if he fails to deposit rent as directed by court as per O 15A of CPC?

As far as maintainability of the application is concerned, in my

view, Order 15A

of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked at the

appellate stage also in view of the provisions of Section 107(2) of the Code

of Civil Procedure. In any case, the appellate Court can exercise jurisdiction

under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in such situation for the

ends of justice.

The learned District Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction

vested in him by rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to strike off the

defence of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 7007 OF 2016

Santosh @ Ambadas Jayendra Vs   M/s. Khemka Automobiles,

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 20, 2017.

Print Page

When deposit of rent would not amount to valid tender of rent?

 No doubt, the respondent is found to have issued a notice marked as Ex. R2 calling upon the petitioners to furnish their bank account particulars with a view to deposit the rent in the said account and however, according to the respondent, inasmuch as the same had not been responded by the petitioners, he was necessitated to deposit the rent in the rent control proceedings.  As rightly put forth by the petitioners' counsel, considering the strained relationship between the parties, the respondent should have been more careful in paying the rent and merely because at one point of time, the petitioners had been collecting the rents in lumpsum that would not give a leverage to the respondent in not paying the rent regularly when it becomes due and also punctually and therefore, as determined by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the respondent having failed to take proper steps to deposit the rent as provided under Section 8 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and particularly, when the petitioners are not posted with the information as to the alleged deposit of the rent by the respondent in the civil suit proceeding and the rent control proceedings with a view to enable the petitioners to withdraw the same, in such view of the matter, the alleged deposit of the rent by the respondent in the abovesaid proceedings would not amount to a valid tender of the rent and the same had been acceded to by the petitioners. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)

C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 709 of 2008

Decided On: 04.01.2019

Ganapathy Murugan  Vs.  Madaswamy

Print Page

Whether landlord can be denied rent from tenant if documents of title of property of tenant is laying with landlord as security?

In reply to both these applications, it is stated by the Defendants that the papers relating to the residential properties of the Defendants at 12, Malikpur, Model Town-I, Delhi-110009 are in the possession of the Plaintiff and that it is a sufficient security. It is only contended that the Plaintiff cannot be granted relief "based upon a disputed rent and a liability which has not been admitted by the Defendants".

15. As already observed, the word 'rent' in Order XVA CPC is not limited to the 'admitted' rent. In any event, it also envisages the Court determining an 'amount' payable towards either rent or future mesne profits. In the present case, after the termination of the tenancy, the Defendants continue to occupy the commercial property. The property, in which where they are running a restaurant, is located in a busy market area. The Defendants have not countered the documents placed on record by the Plaintiff to show that the current market rent for commercial property of a similar size in the area is more than Rs. 3 lakhs per month. The mere fact that the Plaintiff may have the title documents of the residential property of the Defendants cannot be said to constitute sufficient security for the purposes of Order XVA CPC. The object of this provision is to provide the landlord with some 'amount' for use and occupation of the property by the Defendant during the pendency of the litigation. Keeping these factors in view, the Court is of the opinion that pending the final decision in the suit, the Defendants should deposit towards use and occupation charges/falling within the meaning of the expression 'such amount' in Order XVA CPC, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh per month.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 1698 of 2011

Decided On: 03.12.2013

 Prem Lata Vs. Raghubir Rai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Muralidhar, J.

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by court if tenant fails to deposit rent in accordance with order passed by U/ 15A of CPC

Sub-rule (1) of Order 15-A as amended applies to a suit by a lessor against a lessee or a licensor against a licensee for eviction with or without the arrears of rent or licence fee and future mesne profits. In such a suit, the Court is empowered to direct the defendant to deposit such amount as the Court may direct on account of arrears upto the date of the Order and thereafter to continue to deposit in each succeeding month the rent or licensee fee claimed in the suit as the Court may direct. Sub-rule (1) provides that the defendant shall unless otherwise directed continue to deposit such amount till the decision of the suit. The legislature was clearly conscious of the necessity of requiring the tenant or, as the case may be, a licensee to deposit such an amount as the Court may direct towards arrears payable on account of his occupation and to protect the interest of the landlord by requiring that future deposits of the amount of rent or the licence fee must also be made. In the absence of such a provision, the landlord would have to suffer the hardship of awaiting a final decision of the suit for eviction before any amount would be recovered. This was obviated by conferring upon the Court, the power to pass an appropriate interim order. Even in the absence of such a provision, the hardship which was liable to be suffered by the landlord has been sought to be obviated by the decision of this Court in Sangeeta Prints (supra) by taking recourse to the provisions of Order 39, Rule 10 and section 151 of the Code. Having regard to the salutary object underlying the provisions, the proviso to sub-rule (1) envisages certain consequence emanating from a non-compliance of the order of deposit. The proviso stipulates that in the event of a default in making deposit as decided, the Court may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), strike off the defence. Undoubtedly, before striking off the defence, sub-rule (2) provides that a notice has to be issued to the defendant to show cause and the cause, if any, shown has to be considered in order to decide as to whether the defendant should be relieved of a peremptory order striking off the defence. Sub-rule (2) in turn indicates that unless the Court is of the view that there are valid circumstances as to why the defendant should be relieved of an order striking off his defence, ordinarily the defence would be liable to be struck off upon a failure of compliance with an order of deposit. In these circumstances, there can be no gainsaying the fact that an order passed under sub-rule (1) is an order of moment and is liable to seriously effect the rights of the parties. A defendant who does not comply with the order of deposit, cannot be relieved of the striking off of his defence unless he shows sufficient cause. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that an order under sub-rule (1) of Order 15-A is merely a procedural order and is not subject to a revision under sub-section (4) of section 42 of the Act. In the present case, a revision is maintainable. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 1079 of 2003

Decided On: 08.09.2003

 Colaba Central Co-operative Consumer Wholesale and Retail Stores Ltd. alias Sahakar Bhandar

Vs.

 Kusumben Kantilal Shah and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Citation: 2003(4)ALLMR304; 2004(1)BomCR547

Print Page

Whether court can direct tenant to deposit arrears of rent in eviction suit?

It may also be mentioned that another Single Judge in the case of Sangeeta Prints vs. Hemal Prints, MANU/MH/0398/1985 : 1985 Mh. L.J. 413 has noted the introduction of Order XV-A in the Code of Civil Procedure and its applicability to suits filed by landlords against the tenants. In the said case however the question was whether the said rule would apply to a suit between licensee and licensor by virtue of section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The Learned Judge after considering the provisions of the Small Cause Courts Act and other provisions came to the conclusion that there was no reason as to why the provision of Order XV-A could not be made applicable to a suit between the licensor and licensee since provisions of Code of Civil Procedure apply to suits under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. In that case the Court took act of the provision under section 151 and Order XXXIX, rule 10. Another Judgment referred is the Judgment in the case of Jaihind Vidyalaya, Nagpur vs. Ghanshyam Girdharilal Khinchi, MANU/MH/0299/1989 : AIR 1989 Bom. 99, where the Court observed as under :-

The plain reading of Order XV-A shows that the Court has powers to direct the tenant to deposit arrears of rent irrespective of the fact whether the Suit is mainly for eviction or for arrears of rent. In either of these categories, the Court can use its discretion.

It may be pointed out that in the said case what was sought to be argued was that the Court could direct the deposit of arrears only when the suit is for eviction with the other reliefs of arrears of rent and or mesne profits and that such relief could never be given by the Court if the main relief of the suit is only for eviction. On the plain reading of Order XV-A the Court negatived the contention. Thus considering the provisions of Rent Act and the Rules framed thereunder as also the provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, there is no doubt that the Small Cause Court or any other Court constituted under the Rent Act to hear the evictions matter is empowered under provision of Order XV-A to call on the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent and recovering rent during the pendency of the proceedings. No doubt, it is the Court which will direct the tenant to deposit such amount as the Court may prima facie come to the conclusion that requires to be deposited. The power is therefore in the Court in its discretion to fix the quantum which has to be deposited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Rev. Appln. No. 866 of 1991

Decided On: 12.07.1996

 Shantaram Janu Raut Vs. Smt. Claradas Lourds

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

F.I. Rebello, J.

Citation: 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 639

Print Page

When court should pass decree for eviction against tenant if he fails to deposit rent in court on first date of hearing?

 The
facts on record, as detailed supra, would show that the
defendants   No.   1   and   2   not   only   failed   to   tender   the
rent to the plaintiff after receipt of the communication
but they did not even deposit the rent in the court on
the   first   date   of   hearing.   The   decree   passed   by   the
learned   trial   court,   as   confirmed   by   the   learned
Principal  District  Judge,  in  the  circumstances, cannot
be assailed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2012
Rameshchandra Daulal Soni,

V
 Devichand Hiralal Gandhi,


­­­­
   CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

DATED  : 20th JULY, 2015
Citation:2016(6) ALLMR 63

Print Page

Compliance to be made by tenant for seeking benefit of rent control law

Tenancy - Protection against eviction - Benefit thereof - Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - High Court, while upholding Small Causes Court's orders, rejected application for review of order passed under Section 7(2) of Act - Hence, present appeal - Whether Tenant-Respondent was entitled to benefit of protection against eviction by paying arrears of rent - Held, Court instead of directing tenant to deposit rent with Civil Judge, permitted tenant to deposit rent as prayed for in petition - Tenant deposited rent within time as required under Section 7(1) of Act, but said deposit was made with Rent Controller - Rent Control Acts are enacted to protect tenants from illegal eviction without obtaining decree or order from competent Court - Benefits conferred on tenants through those Rent Control Acts can be enjoyed only after strict compliance with statutory provisions - Deposit of such rent by tenant with Rent Controller instead of Civil Judge as per amendments was either deliberate or bonafide mistake - This might be reason, present Court observed that tenant might satisfy Court that such deposit was bonafide - Present Court gave liberty to tenant to satisfy that such deposit with Rent Controller instead of Civil Judge was bonafide - Impugned order was thus fully justified - Appeal dismissed. [20],[28],[29] and[30]
Equivalent Citation: 2015(1)RCR(Rent)583, 2015(5)SCALE436,AIR 2015 SC 2855,(2015)8 SCC640

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3786 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20281 of 2014)

Decided On: 21.04.2015

Monoj Lal Seal and Ors.Vs.  Octavious Tea and Industries Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:M. Yusuf Eqbal and Amitava Roy, JJ.

Print Page

When court can not give extension of time or condone default in depositing rent within stipulated period?

 Thus, on analysis of the aforesaid two
decisions we find that wherever the special Act
provides for extension of time or condonation of
default, the Court possesses the power therefor,
but where the statute does not provide either
for extension of time or to condone the
default in depositing the rent within the
stipulated period, the Court does not have
the power to do so.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO. 250/2014
Om Prakash Vadvani vs. Devendra Kumar
Date of Judgment : 12th January, 2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Citation; AIR 2015 Raj56

Print Page