Eviction and Rent Dispute: Supreme Court Reinstates Trial Court’s Order Against Tenant
The case of Asha Rani Gupta vs. Sri Vineet Kumar revolves around a long-standing rental dispute where the plaintiff sought eviction, recovery of rent arrears, and damages for unauthorized occupation. The litigation originated from a suit filed by the landlord, Asha Rani Gupta, against the tenant, Vineet Kumar, for failing to pay rent and refusing to vacate the premises despite legal notices.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, examined the validity of the High Court’s decision to set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Revisional Court, which had earlier ruled in favor of the landlord. The key legal question before the Court was whether the High Court was correct in reversing the striking off of the tenant’s defense under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from a commercial rental agreement concerning a shop located in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. The facts of the case are as follows:
- The plaintiff, Asha Rani Gupta, purchased the shop from the previous owner, Rajiv Kant Sharma, through a registered sale deed dated 10 May 2010.
- The defendant, Vineet Kumar, was a tenant in the shop under the previous owner and was required to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 625, along with statutory taxes.
- The plaintiff informed the tenant about the change in ownership, but he failed to pay rent from May 2010 onwards.
- A legal notice was served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on 8 February 2011, demanding the payment of arrears and vacating the premises.
- The tenant refused to comply, prompting the plaintiff to file an eviction suit before the Small Causes Court in Aligarh in April 2011.
Tenant’s Defense
The defendant contested the eviction suit by arguing that:
- He did not recognize the plaintiff as the landlord and disputed the validity of the sale deed.
- The shop was initially leased to him by Sudha Sharma (the wife of the previous owner), and not by Rajiv Kant Sharma.
- He continued paying rent to Sudha Sharma until August 2010, and the plaintiff had no rightful claim to collect rent from him.
- The shop was an old construction and fell under the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent, and Eviction) Act, 1972, which provided additional protections to tenants.
Trial Court’s Ruling
The plaintiff sought to strike off the tenant’s defense under Order XV Rule 5 CPC, which mandates that tenants must continue to deposit rent during litigation. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on 1 March 2017, holding that:
- The defendant failed to deposit rent despite his obligations under the law.
- Even if the tenant denied the landlord-tenant relationship, the law required him to continue depositing rent in court.
- Due to non-compliance, the defendant’s defense was struck off.
Revisional Court’s Endorsement
The defendant appealed against the Trial Court’s decision, but the Fourth Additional District Judge, Aligarh, dismissed his revision on 18 January 2018. The Revisional Court upheld the Trial Court’s findings, emphasizing that:
- The tenant admitted occupying the shop but deliberately avoided depositing rent.
- The law required tenants to deposit rent even if they contested the landlord’s ownership.
- There was no legal justification to grant the tenant any relief from the consequences of non-payment.
High Court’s Reversal
The tenant then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On 2 November 2018, the High Court ruled in his favor, holding that:
- Striking off a tenant’s defense is a discretionary power and should be exercised cautiously.
- The defendant’s plea of denying the landlord-tenant relationship was sufficient reason to allow him to continue contesting the suit.
- The tenant was granted “some indulgence” by being ordered to deposit arrears of rent with interest and to continue paying rent monthly.
Supreme Court’s Judgment
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in overturning the well-reasoned decisions of the lower courts. The key findings were:
- The tenant’s failure to deposit rent violated Order XV Rule 5 CPC.
- Denying the landlord-tenant relationship did not absolve the tenant from his obligation to pay rent.
- The High Court granted “indulgence” to the tenant without any legal basis or justification.
The Supreme Court observed:
“There was absolutely no reason for the High Court to have interfered in the present case, where the Trial Court had struck off the defense after finding that there was no evidence on record to show the payment or deposit of rent in favor of the plaintiff by the defendant.”
The Court emphasized that legal protections for tenants should not be misused to evade financial obligations. It stated:
“The power to strike off the defense is a discretionary power that must be exercised with caution. However, when there is clear defiance and non-compliance with legal obligations, the consequences of the law must follow.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court:
- Allowed the plaintiff’s appeal.
- Set aside the High Court’s order.
- Restored the Trial Court’s order striking off the tenant’s defense.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirms the principle that tenants cannot evade their financial responsibilities by merely contesting the landlord’s ownership. The ruling ensures that tenants comply with legal requirements, such as depositing rent during litigation, and prevents unnecessary delays in eviction proceedings.
This case underscores the importance of procedural compliance in rent disputes and serves as a reminder that courts will not tolerate willful defaults by tenants seeking to prolong litigation unfairly.
Petitioner Name: Asha Rani Gupta.Respondent Name: Sri Vineet Kumar.Judgment By: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Aniruddha Bose.Place Of Incident: Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.Judgment Date: 11-07-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: asha-rani-gupta-vs-sri-vineet-kumar-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-11-07-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2022
See all petitions in 2022 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
