1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Minor Act and SC Rules

BUDH RAM V. RALLA RAM (1987) 4 SCC 75

 BUDH RAM V. RALLA RAM (1987) 4 SCC 75

FACTS

  • Present is an appeal before SC by a tenant against an eviction order granted by the Rent Controller and upheld by the appellate authority and the High Court.
  • The eviction was sought due to alleged arrears of rent.
  • The landlord claimed that the shop was rented out to the tenant at Rs 5000 per annum, while the tenant insisted it was Rs 2500 per annum.
  • There was a dispute over the signature on the rent note and the terms of the rental agreement.
  • The landlord claimed arrears of rent for specific periods, while the tenant tendered a sum of money on the first day of the hearing.
  • The lower court concluded that the rent note was executed by the tenant and that the annual rent was Rs 5000.

ISSUE

  • The key issue revolves around the validity of the rental agreement, the arrears of rent claimed, and whether the tenant's tendered amount was sufficient to prevent eviction.

RULE

The court clarified that the obligation to pay rent continues on a monthly basis even after the expiry of a fixed-term lease, and failure to pay rent can lead to eviction proceedings by the landlord.

HELD

  • It was noted that initially Rs 5000 was paid by the tenant, but later Rs 2500 was returned, allegedly because the tenant was to occupy the premises for only six months instead of a year.
  • The landlord claimed arrears of rent for the remaining six months and April 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977 while the tenant tendered a sum of money on the first day 30 July 1976 of the hearing of Rs 2500/- as advance for the next year i.e. April 1976-77.
  • The document mentioning payment of yearly rent in advance was deemed to be a lease for one year, not a lease from year to year.
  • Even if the lease ended after one year, the tenant was expected to pay rent from month to month as per Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. For at least two months April and May 
  • The courts upheld the eviction decree, stating that:
  • The tenant was in arrears of rent.
  • The amount tendered by the tenant on the first day of the hearing was insufficient to cover the arrears. (As the amount of the remaining six months was not paid and at least two months’ rent should be paid by lessee)
  • Therefore, the courts found the landlord entitled to a decree for eviction.
  • The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.