The High Court at Allahabad has clarified that a tenant cannot validly invoke the provisions of Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 to deposit rent in court once an S.C.C. (Small Causes Court) suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent is already pending.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, while dismissing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that once a dispute enters the domain of judicial adjudication through an eviction suit, the tenant must comply with the procedural framework of that specific court, primarily under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Smt. Ram Dulari and another, claimed to be long-term tenants of a tailoring shop in Moradabad. They alleged that after the death of the original tenant, they continued in possession and tendered rent to the respondent-landlord, who purchased the property in 2010. Following an alleged refusal by the landlord to accept the rent, the petitioners filed an application under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Misc. Case No. 194 of 2021) seeking permission to deposit the rent in court.
However, the respondent-landlord pointed out that prior to the filing of the Section 30 application, an S.C.C. Suit (No. 41 of 2021) for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent had already been instituted on August 17, 2021, and notice had been served upon the tenants.
Trial and Revisional Court Findings
The trial court (Civil Judge, Junior Division, Moradabad) rejected the petitioners’ application on October 25, 2021, noting that since an eviction suit was already pending, the tenants were required to deposit rent before that court. This order was subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Moradabad, in Civil Revision No. 21 of 2022 on November 13, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Akanksha Mishra, argued that Section 30 provides a statutory mechanism for tenants to deposit rent when a landlord refuses it, and that the pendency of an S.C.C. suit does not bar this recourse. She further contended that Order XV Rule 5 CPC governs deposits during the suit’s pendency, whereas Section 30 operates independently before the prescribed authority.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and Order XV Rule 5 CPC. It noted that Section 30 is a “protective and enabling provision” designed for “pre-litigation” scenarios where a landlord refuses rent or there is a bona fide doubt regarding who is entitled to receive it.
The Court cited the Division Bench judgment in Haider Abbas vs. Additional District Judge & Ors. (2006), which established that the legislative scheme distinguishes between deposits made prior to the suit and those made during its pendency.
Key observations from the judgment include:
“The statutory scheme thus clearly indicates that Section 30 is a pre-litigation protective mechanism… However, once an eviction suit for arrears of rent is instituted and the dispute enters the domain of judicial adjudication, the legal regime governing deposit of rent undergoes a shift.”
The Court further observed:
“Any deposit made by the tenant under Section 30 during the pendency of such proceedings cannot be treated as valid tender or payment of rent in the eyes of law. Such deposits neither satisfy the statutory requirement governing deposits during litigation nor enure to the benefit of the tenant for the purposes of claiming protection against eviction.”
Justice Srivastava emphasized that allowing such deposits would “defeat the procedural discipline” and allow tenants to “circumvent the jurisdiction of the court where the lis is pending.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the courts below had correctly applied the law. It held that once the relationship between the parties becomes sub judice through an eviction suit, the tenant must follow the requirements of Order XV Rule 5 CPC to deposit admitted rent and continued monthly amounts.
Finding no jurisdictional error or manifest illegality, the Court dismissed the petition as being devoid of merit.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt Ram Dulari And Another vs. Harshit Yadav And Another
- Case Number: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 3759 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- Date: March 25, 2026
