2002 (1) TMI 1324 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Default in payment of rent.
2. Sub-letting by the tenant.
3. Interpretation of Sections 20(4) and 30(2) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972.

Summary:

1. Default in Payment of Rent:
The tenant appealed against the Allahabad High Court's decision, which dismissed his writ petition challenging an eviction order based on default in rent payment. The Trial Court found the tenant in arrears but did not pass an eviction decree since the tenant paid the due amount on the first hearing date as per Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972. The Revisional Court, however, decreed eviction due to arrears and sub-letting, which the High Court upheld regarding rent default but not sub-letting.

2. Sub-letting by the Tenant:
The Trial Court did not accept the landlord's claim of sub-letting by the tenant. The Revisional Court overturned this finding, but the High Court restored the Trial Court's decision, stating that the Revisional Court wrongly substituted its own findings on sub-letting.

3. Interpretation of Sections 20(4) and 30(2) of the Act:
The main contention was whether the tenant had cleared the arrears of rent. The tenant argued that he had deposited all due amounts in court under Section 30(2) of the Act. The High Court concluded that deposits under Section 30(2) could not be adjusted under Section 20(4), which only mentions deposits under Section 30(1). The Supreme Court, however, found this interpretation incorrect. It held that the effect of deposits under Sections 30(1) and 30(2) is the same as per Section 30(6), which deems such deposits as payments to the landlord. Therefore, deposits under Section 30(2) should also be considered when determining arrears under Section 20(4).

The Supreme Court emphasized that statutory provisions should not be read in isolation but harmoniously. It criticized the High Court's interpretation as unnatural and against the statutory effect of Section 30(6). The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court's observations about time-barred arrears and the bona fides of the Section 30(2) deposit were unfounded.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and Revisional Court, and restored the Trial Court's order. No costs were awarded.