Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 28-09-2018 in case of petitioner name P.S. Ayub vs Asif Jagirdar
| |

Tenant Eviction Dispute: Supreme Court Restores Suit After Delayed Rent Deposit

The case of P.S. Ayub vs. Asif Jagirdar revolves around a tenant-landlord dispute concerning eviction due to non-payment of rent. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the tenant’s delay in depositing rent could be condoned, leading to the restoration of the eviction suit.

Background of the Case

The respondent-landlord filed a civil suit (O.S. No.25571/2012) seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant on two grounds:

  • Future non-payment of rent.
  • Termination of tenancy.

The appellant-tenant failed to appear in court, leading to an ex-parte eviction decree on February 4, 2013. The appellant later filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to set aside the decree. However, the trial court dismissed the petition, citing insufficient justification for his absence.

The appellant approached the High Court, which directed him to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs.2,73,000/- within two weeks. The appellant failed to meet the deadline but later deposited the amount with a delay. Due to this delay, the High Court dismissed his application, effectively upholding the eviction decree.

Following this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Tenant)

  • The appellant argued that he had deposited the required amount, albeit with a delay, and should not be penalized by losing his tenancy rights.
  • He contended that he was willing to deposit any additional amount required to regularize his tenancy and restore the case.
  • Eviction due to a procedural lapse would be too harsh a punishment when he was ready to fulfill his obligations.

Arguments by the Respondent (Landlord)

  • The respondent maintained that the appellant had repeatedly defaulted on rent payments.
  • The High Court had granted him sufficient opportunity to deposit the arrears, yet he failed to comply within the stipulated time.
  • The ex-parte eviction decree should be upheld as the appellant had shown negligence in protecting his tenancy rights.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined whether the delay in deposit warranted the harsh consequence of eviction. The Court made the following observations:

  • Condonation of delay should be based on fair opportunity: The Court acknowledged that although the appellant failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time, he had shown willingness to rectify his default.
  • Tenants should be given a final chance: The Court exercised judicial discretion to allow the tenant a last opportunity to deposit the remaining rent arrears.
  • Eviction is a serious matter: The Court emphasized that eviction should not be granted solely due to procedural lapses when the tenant is ready to comply with the payment obligations.
  • Landlord’s rights must also be protected: The Court directed that the landlord be allowed to withdraw the previously deposited rent amount.

Key Judgment Excerpts

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the tenant, stating:

“The appellant shall deposit Rs.2,77,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand) before the concerned Trial Court within a period of eight weeks from today. On deposit of the said amount, the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord i.e. Suit No.25571 of 2012 shall stand restored and the Trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law.”

The Court also provided an important warning:

“On failure to deposit the arrears of Rs.2,77,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand) within the stipulated period, the ex-parte decree of eviction dated 4th February, 2013 shall stand revived.”

Final Judgment

  • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the eviction suit.
  • The tenant was directed to deposit Rs.2,77,000/- within eight weeks.
  • Failure to deposit the amount within the given timeframe would revive the ex-parte eviction decree.
  • The landlord was allowed to withdraw the previously deposited rent amount of Rs.2,73,000/-.
  • The Trial Court was directed to conduct the eviction proceedings in accordance with law, ensuring both parties had a fair hearing.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that eviction cases should be handled with a balance of fairness. While tenants must adhere to their financial obligations, courts should consider reasonable delays and offer opportunities to rectify defaults. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that procedural lapses do not lead to undue hardships while still upholding landlords’ rights to recover due payments.


Petitioner Name: P.S. Ayub.
Respondent Name: Asif Jagirdar.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 28-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: P.S. Ayub vs Asif Jagirdar Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts