Rama Kishan Vs. Umedmal

Rama Kishan vs Umedmal

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Aug 15, 1982

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760650

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/760650
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.
Decided On: Aug 15, 1982
Case Number: S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 71/82
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

RAJASTHAN PREMISES - CONTROL OF RENT & EVICTION ACT, 1950--Section 13(1) & (3) & 19 A--Eviction--Arrears of rent deposited in court by tenant before institution of suit--Held, plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed for eviction as well as for arrears of rent.;The amount of arrears of rent having alr...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rama Kishan

Respondent

Umedmal

Legal References

Reported In: 1982WLN(UC)350

Excerpt

rajasthan premises - control of rent & eviction act, 1950--section 13(1) & (3) & 19 a--eviction--arrears of rent deposited in court by tenant before institution of suit--held, plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed for eviction as well as for arrears of rent.;the amount of arrears of rent having already been deposited by the tenant even prior to the institution of the suit, there was nothing due against him by way of rent when the suit was filed, and as such there should have been no decree for arrears of rent but the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed, not only for eviction but also for recovery of arrears of rent.;appeal allowed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....tenant under section 19a in the court for payment to the landlord, no decree for the said amount should have been parsed against the tenant in the suit. although the courts below allowed adjustment of the said amount of rs. 648/-while passing the order under section 13(3) of the act and also allowed the defendant tenant relief under section 13 (6) by dismissing the suit for eviction taking into consideration is the said deposit of arrears of rent under section 19a, jet the courts below proceeded to pass the decree for the recovery of the very same amount against the defendant tenant. once the amount of rs 648/- had been deposited by the tenant under section 19a even beyond the prescribed time, the land lord could have withdrawn the said amount from the court and in the view of the matter a decree for recovery of the amount of rs. 648/- from the defendant tenant should not have been passed. on the other hand, the defer dant tenant should have been allowed adjustment of the said amount of rs. 648/- which had already been deposited by him under section 19a of the act, while passing the decree for the amount of arrears of rent in the suit. as no other amount towards rent was due except the aforesaid amount of rs. 648/- which had already been deposited by the defendant tenant under section 19a, the plaintiff's suit for recovery of rent should also have been dismissed of course, the defendant might be a defaulter in payment of rent for a period of more than 6 months but as benefit was allowed to him of the provisions of section 13(3), the suit for eviction was rightly dismissed under section 13(6), of the act. the amount of arrears of rent having already been deposited by the tenant even prior to the institution of the suit, there was nothing due against him by way of rent when the suit was filed, and as such there should have been no decree for arrears of rent but the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed not only for eviction but also for recovery of arrears.....

Full Judgment

Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.

1. The only argument advanced by the learned Counsel of the appellant in this appeal is that as the outstanding amount of rent had already been deposited by the tenant appellant in the court under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') prior to the institution of the suit, no decree for payment of the said amount of arrears of rent could have been passed against the appellant.

2. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 648/- in respect of rent for the period of 36 months @ Rs. 18/- per month was claimed in the suit. This amount of rent related to 25.1.75 to 24.1.78. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 648/- towards the arrears of rent was deposited by the defendant tenant in the court under Section 19A of the Act on different dates. It is also not in controversy now between the patties that the amount of rent for the aforesaid period was neither paid or deposited by the tenant appellant as and when the same fell due nor the deposit was made in accordance with the provisions of Section 19A(3)(c). Therefore, it was rightly held by the two courts below that the defendant tenant had committed defaults in payment of rent for a period of more than six months. However as the amount of arrears of rent had already been deposited in the court and as such at the time of determination of the amount payable under Section 13(3) of the Act. Adjustment was allowed to the tenant for the said sum of Rs. 648/- but at the time of final decision of the suit the courts below proceeded to pass a decree against the defendant tenant for the said sum of Rs 648/- in respect of arrears of rent. As already pointed out above, the said sum of Rs 648/- had been deposited by the defendant tenant in the court even prior to the institution of the suit under Section 19A though not within the time specified in Clause (c) of Section 19A(3) read with Section 19B. However once the amount of arrears of rent has already been deposited by the tenant under Section 19A in the court for payment to the landlord, no decree for the said amount should have been parsed against the tenant in the suit. Although the courts below allowed adjustment of the said amount of Rs. 648/-while passing the order under Section 13(3) of the Act and also allowed the defendant tenant relief under Section 13 (6) by dismissing the suit for eviction taking into consideration is the said deposit of arrears of rent under Section 19A, jet the courts below proceeded to pass the decree for the recovery of the very same amount against the defendant tenant. Once the amount of Rs 648/- had been deposited by the tenant under Section 19A even beyond the prescribed time, the land lord could have withdrawn the said amount from the court and in the view of the matter a decree for recovery of the amount of Rs. 648/- from the defendant tenant should not have been passed. On the other hand, the defer dant tenant should have been allowed adjustment of the said amount of Rs. 648/- which had already been deposited by him under Section 19A of the Act, while passing the decree for the amount of arrears of rent in the suit. As no other amount towards rent was due except the aforesaid amount of Rs. 648/- which had already been deposited by the defendant tenant under Section 19A, the plaintiff's suit for recovery of rent should also have been dismissed Of course, the defendant might be a defaulter in payment of rent for a period of more than 6 months but as benefit was allowed to him of the provisions of Section 13(3), the suit for eviction was rightly dismissed under Section 13(6), of the Act. The amount of arrears of rent having already been deposited by the tenant even prior to the institution of the suit, there was nothing due against him by way of rent when the suit was filed, and as such there should have been no decree for arrears of rent but the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed not only for eviction but also for recovery of arrears of rent.

3. In the result the appeals is allowed the decree passed by the two courts below is set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed. The patties are directed to bear their own costs in all the courts.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1982 Same Parties Rama Kishan vs Umedmal Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.

Tenancy