{"id":105067,"date":"1993-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993"},"modified":"2016-12-17T11:26:51","modified_gmt":"2016-12-17T05:56:51","slug":"bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993","title":{"rendered":"Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 1498, \t\t 1993 SCR (2) 369<\/div>\n
Author: A Anand<\/div>\n
Bench: Anand, A.S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBHOJA @ BHOJA RAM GUPTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMESHWAR AGARWALA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/03\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nANAND, A.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nANAND, A.S. (J)\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 AIR 1498\t\t  1993 SCR  (2) 369\n 1993 SCC  (2) 443\t  JT 1993 (2)\t375\n 1993 SCALE  (2)58\n\n\nACT:\nBihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act:\nSection 4-Rent-Enhancement of-Procedure-Excess rent paid  by\ntenant\twhether\t could\tbe  automatically  adjusted  against\nsubsequent defaults in payment of monthly rent.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  defendant-appellant was a tenant under  the  plaintiff-\nlandlord on a monthly rent of Rs.70. The appellant defaulted\nIn   the   payment  of\tthe  rent  or\tthe   suit-premises-\nresidential-cum-shop premises-with effect from October, 1975\nto June, 1976.\nAs  the\t appellant did not vacate the  premises\t even  after\nbeing  served with a notice under section 106.\tTransfer  of\nProperty  Act,\ta suit was filed for his eviction  from\t the\nsuit  premises,,  being\t a  defaulter.\t The  landlord\talso\npleaded his own bona fide requirement of the suit-promises.\nThe  appellant-tenant  submitted that he  was  originally  a\ntenant\tunder  one Smt.\t Sita Devi, the owner  of  the\tsuit\npremises at a monthly rent of Rs.55; that he was paying\t the\nrent  to  Smt.\tSita Devi and after the\t plaintiff  landlord\npurchased  the\thouse  from her in 1968,  he  continued\t its\ntenant of plaintiff. that the plaintiff illegally  increased\nthe  rent from Rs.55 to Rs.65 per month (and not Rs. 70\t per\nmouth.) under threat of eviction that town( paid the rent at\nthe rate of km, 6.5 per mouth upto the month commencing from\n16.1.1976, when the plaintiff landlord refused to accept the\nsame  with effect from 16.2..1976 that defendant-tenant\t did\nnot default In payment of rent as subsequently rent had been\nsent by Money Order that the landlord-plaintiff did not have\nany  bona fide necessity for the premises and that the\tsuit\nwas not maintainable.\nThe  Trial  Court hold that the suit  was  maintainable\t the\nplaintiff  had cause of action for the suit and\t tenancy  of\nthe  defendant was validity terminated.\t It also  held\talso\nheld that the defendant tenant was a defaulter and was 369\n370\nliable\tto  be evicted from the primises.  It  however\theld\nthat  the plaintiff had failed to prove his  case  regarding\nbona fide requirement of the suit premises.  The Trial Court\nhowever\t held  that the plaintiff-landlord  could  not\thave\nenhanced the rent without taking recourse to the  provisions\nof Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and\ntherefore the Court calculated the arrears of rent at  Rs.55\nper month.\nThe  Trial  Court decreed the suit partly and  directed\t the\ndefendanttenant\t to vacate the suit premises and to  deliver\nthe vacant possession of the same to the  plaintiff-landlord\nwithin 90 days from the date of the decree.\nTenant-appellant  filed\t a First Appeal\t against  the  Trial\nCourt's\t judgment.   Plaintiff-landlord\t also  filed  cross-\nobjections  challenging\t the  finding  of  the\tTrial  Court\nregarding determination of the rate of rent and the  arrears\nof  rent.   The First Appellate Court dismissed\t the  Cross-\nobjections  and confirmed the finding of the Trial Court  to\nthe  effect  that the rent lawfully payable was Rs.  55\t per\nmonth.\t It  held that the defendanttenant was\ta  defaulter\nwith  effect from 16.5.1976 onwards and he was liable to  be\nevicted and dismissed the appeal of the tenant.\nThe   Second  Appeal  filed  by\t the  appellant-tenant\t was\ndismissed  by  the High Court in limine,  against  which  by\nspecial leave the present appeal was filed in this Court.\nThe appellant contended that since the rent lawfully payable\nper month was Rs. 55 per month and not Rs. 65 which was paid\nby the appellant, the excess amount paid should be adjusted,\nthere\tcould  be  no  quotation  of  holding  appellant   a\ndefaulter. (This plea of appellant was rejected by the First\nAppellate Court on the ground that no prayer for  adjustment\nin writing was made by him.)\nThe respondent-landlord submitted that the excess rent\tpaid\nby  the\t tenant to his landlord in pursuance of\t a  mutually\nagreed\tillegal\t enhancement, could  not  get  automatically\nadjusted  against the subsequent defaults in the payment  of\nmonthly rent.\nDismissing the appeal of the tenant, this Court,\nHELD- 1.01. Section 4 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and\nEviction) Control Act creates an absolute prohibiton against\nillegal increase or enhacement of rent except in the  manner\nprovided by the\n371\nprovisions  of the Act itself and lays down that it  is\t not\neven permissible for the parties to contract themselves\t out\nof  such  a prohibition.  Thus, on its\tplain  language\t any\nincrease  or claim to increase in the rent by  the  landlord\nwould  be  unlawful  and any agreement to do  so  except  in\naccordance with the provisions of the Act would not cure the\nillegality. [377B-C]\n1.02.  The Act does not contain any provision for  automatic\nadjustment  of excess rent.  Neither in reply to the  notice\nunder Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act nor in the\nwritten\t statement  or\tthrough any other  writing  was\t the\nadjustment of excess rent towards the arrears claimed by the\ntenant\tfrom  the  landlord.  There also  was  no  agreement\nbetween\t the parties at any point of time for adjustment  of\nthe excess rent illegally paid towards the rent falling\t due\nsubsequently. [377F]\n1.03.  The rent payable in the instant case was\t only  Rs.55\nper  month  and the tenant was made to pay Rs.65  per  month\nfrom  1968 onwards after the property had been purchased  by\nthe plaintiff-landlord under threat of eviction, it must  be\nheld  that the increase in the rent from Rs.55 per month  to\nRs.65  per  month  was unlawful and  the  landlord  was\t not\nentitled  to recover anything more than Rs.55 per  month  by\nway of rent. [377C-D]\n1.04.  The  excess rent paid by the tenant in  pursuance  of\nmutually agreed illegal enchancement thereof by the  parties\ndoes  not get automatically adjusted against the  subsequent\ndefaults  in the payment of the monthly rent under  the\t Act\nand even under the general law such an automatic  adjustment\nis not countenanced. [381B]\n1.05.  A tenant cannot save himself from the conseqences  of\neviction  under\t the  Act on the ground of  default  in\t the\npayment\t of  rent by claiming automatic\t adjustment  of\t any\nexcess rent paid consequent upon mutual enhacement of  rent,\neven  if  illegal unless there is an agreement\tbetween\t the\nparties\t for such an adjustment.  The tenant may also  in  a\ngiven  case seek adjustment of the excess rent in the  hands\nof  the landlord against the arrears by specifically  asking\nthe  landlord  for such an adjustment before riling  of\t the\nsuit  or in response to the notice to quit and even  in\t the\nwritten\t statement  by way of set off within the  period  of\nlimitation and by following the procedure for claiming\tsuch\na  set\toff, while resisting the claim for eviction  on\t the\nground\tof  default in payment of arrears of  rent  but,  he\ncannot claim 'automatic adjustment. [381 H, 382A-B]\n372\nMohd.  Salimuddin v. Misri Lal and Anr.,<\/a> [1986] 1 NCR\t622,\nM\/s, SarwanKumar  Onkar Nath v. Subhus\tKumar  Agarwalla<\/a>\n[1987] 4 SCC 546, distinguished,,\nGulab Chand Prasad v. Budhwanti and Anr., AIR 1985 Patna 327\n(F.B.)\tand Nune Panduranga, Rao v. Divvala Gopala Rao,\t AIR\n1952 Madras 827, approved.\nBudshwanti  and Anr. v. Gulab Chand Prasad<\/a> [1987]2 SCC\t153,\nreferred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2924 of 1985,
\nFrom  the  Judgment and Order dated 124, 1985 of  the  Patna
\nHigh Court in SA, No.2A of 1985(R).\n<\/p>\n
J.P. Goyal.  M.R. Bidsar and Rajesh for the Appellant
\nD.P. Mukherjee for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The  Judgment of the, Court was delivered by
\nDR.   ANAND, J. This appeal by special leave, filed  by\t the
\ntenant,\t is  directed against the dismissal  of\t his  Second
\nAppeal, in limine by the High Court of Patna (Ranchi  Bench)
\non 12,4.1985,
\nThe landlord filed a suit for eviction of the appellant from
\nthe   residential-cum-shop  premise,  situate\tat   holding
\nNo.224\/D Ward No.7 Bazar Mohalla Jugsalai, Shorn of  details
\nthe case of the landlord is that the appellant was a  tenant
\nUnder  him on a monthly\t rent  of Rs. 70, but had  not\tpaid
\nthe  rent of the disputed premises with effect from  October
\n1975 to June, 1976 and\tbeing a defaulter for more than\t two
\nmonths. was liable to be evicted.  The landlord also claimed
\narreas of rent from October 1975 to June, 1976 amounting  to
\nRs.  630.   The\t landlord also pleaded\this  own  bona\tfide
\nrequirement of the suit premises.  The suit was filed in the
\nCourt  of  Munsif, Jamshedpur in 1976 because even  after  a
\nnotice\tunder Section 106 of the Transfer of  Property\tAct,
\nterminating the tenancy had been served on the tenant he did
\nnot vacate the priemises.  The suit was resisted and it\t was
\npleaded on behalf of the tenant-appellant that the  premises
\nin  dispute  originally\t belonged to one  Suit.\t  Sita\tDevi
\nKhirwal from whom he
\n 373<\/span>
\nhad  taken the premises on monthly rent of Rs. 55;  that  he
\nhad  been  paying the rent to Smt.   Sita  Devi\t Khirwal,all
\nalong  and after the plaintiff-landlord purchased the  house
\nfrom  her in MS, the defendant continued as his\t tenant\t but
\nthe plaintiff-landlord\tillegally increased the rent of\t the
\nsuit  from Rs. 55 to Rs. 65 p.m (and not Rs. 70\t pm.)  under
\nthreat of eviction and the tenant paid the rent at the\trate
\nof  Rs. 65 per month upto the month commencing from 16th  of
\nJanuary,  1976 when the plaintifflandlord refused to  accept
\nthe same with effect from 16.2.1976. It was maintained\tthat
\nthe  defendant-tenant  had not defaulted in the\t payment  of
\nrent  as subsequent rent had been sent by money\t order.\t  It
\nwas  also asserted that the landlord-plaintiff did not\thave
\nany  bona fide necessity for the premises.  On the  pleading
\nof the parties, the following issues were framed:
\n“1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?\n<\/p>\n
2. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action for the suit?
\n3,  Has\t the tenancy of the defendant  been  validly  deter.
\nmined?\n<\/p>\n
4.   Is the defendant a-defaulter?\n<\/p>\n
5. Do the plaintiff require the suit promises for their bona
\nfide use mind occupation?\n<\/p>\n
6.  Is\tthe  defendant liable to be evicted  from  the\tsuit
\npremise?\n<\/p>\n
7.  Am\tthe plaintiffs entitled to the arrears\tof  rent  as
\nclaimed?\n<\/p>\n
8. To what relief or reliefs, if any. are the paintiffs\t en-
\ntitled?”\n<\/p>\n
Issue  Nos. 1, 2 and I were decided against  the  defendant-
\ntenant.\t  Issue\t No.5  was decided  against  the  plaintiff-
\nlandlord  and  it was hold that he had failed to  prove\t the
\ncase regarding bonafide requirement of the suit premises,
\nIssue  No.4 and 6 were taken up together for  consideration,
\nThe Trial Court held on facts that the defendant-tenant\t was
\na  defaulter of and was liable to be evicted from  the\tsuit
\npremises.\n<\/p>\n
374<\/span><\/p>\n
Dealing\t with Issue No.7, the Trial Court noticed  that\t the
\nplaintifflandlord  had\tclaimed\t arrears of  rent  from\t the
\ndefendant  from\t October, 1975 to June, 1976 @\tRs.  70\t per
\nmonth.\t It was found that originally the rent of  the\tsuit
\npremises was Rs. 55 per month and that the plaintifflandlord
\nhad  after purchaing the suit premises\tunlawfully  enhanced
\nthe rent of the premises from Rs. 55 to Rs. 65 per month and
\nthat the tenant continued to pay the rent @ Rs. 65 per month
\nunder threat of eviction.  The learned Trial Court  accepted
\nthe plea of the defendant-tenant that the plaintiff-landlord
\ncould  not  have  enhanced the rent for\t the  suit  premises
\nwithout taking recourse to the provisions of Bihar  Building
\n(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter the Act)
\nand  held that rate of rent for the suit premises  shall  be
\ndeemed\tto  be\tRs. 55 per month  only.\t  The  Trial  Court,
\nhowever, found, on facts, that the defendant-tenant had\t not
\npaid   rent  to\t the  plaintiff-landlord  from\t the   month
\ncommencing from 16th October, 1975 upto the month commencing
\n16th  June, 1976 and therefore, the defendant-tenant was  in
\narrears of rent for 7 months calculated at Rs-55 per  month.
\nA  decree for the arrears of rent for Rs.385, calculated  at
\nRs.55  per  month for 7 months, was,  therefore,  passed  in
\nfavour\tof  the plaintiff-landlord and\tissue  No.7  decided
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
As  a result the suit of the plaintiff-landlord wad  decreed
\nin  part with proportionate costs and  the  defendant-tenant
\nwas,  directed\tto  quit and vacate the\t suit  premises\t and
\ndeliver the vacant possession of the same to the  plaintiff-
\nlandlord  within 90 days from the date of the  decree.\t The
\ndefendant-tenant was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.385 to
\nthe  plaintifflandlord, being the arreas of rent within\t the
\naforesaid  period of 90 days Aggrieved by the  judgment\t and
\ndecree\tof the Trial Court, the tenant filed a First  Appeal
\nin  the\t Court\tof the\t3rd  Additional\t Subordinate  Judge,
\nJamshedpur.    The  plaintiff-landlord\talso   filed   cross
\nobjections  challenging the findings on Issue  No.7  stating
\ntherein\t that the Trail Court ought to have passed a  decree
\nfor  arrears of rent calculated @ Rs.70 per month and not  @
\nRs.55  per  month.  The defendant-tenant, however,  did\t not
\nassail the judgment and decree of the Trial Court except  as
\nregards\t the findings relating to the default of the  tenant
\nin payment of rent.  Before the 1st Appellate Court only the
\nfollowing two points were canvassed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ‘Point  No.1:  Whether  the  findings  of\t the
\n\t      learned lower court fixing the monthly rent of
\n\t      the  suit\t premises at Rs.55  is\tcorrect\t and
\n\t      sustainable in the eye of law?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
375<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Point  No.11:  Whether  the  findings  of\t the
\n\t      learned court below with regard to the default
\n\t      of  the  defendant appellant  is\tcorrect\t and
\n\t      sustainable in the eye of law?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  1st Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the  Trial
\nCourt to the effect that the rent lawfully payable was Rs.55
\nper  month  and\t consequently  the  cross  objections\twere
\ndismissed.  While deciding Point No.11 (supra), it was found
\nthat  the  defendant-tenant had paid the rent @ Rs.  65\t per
\nmonth  and after taking into account the rents\tremitted  by
\nmoney-order etc, it was held that the defendant-tenant was a
\ndefaulter with effect from 16.5.1976 onwards and thus liable
\nto be evicted.\n<\/p>\n
Before the 1st Appellate Court, a plea was raised on  behalf
\nof the defendant-tenant that since the rent lawfully payable
\nper  month as found by the courts below was only  Rs.55\t per
\nmonth  and  not Rs.65, as had been admittedly  paid  by\t the
\ndefendant-tenant,  the excess amount paid should  have\tbeen
\nautomatically  adjusted\t in  the  future  rent\tand  if\t  so
\nadjusted, there could be no question of the defendant-tenant
\nbeing  held  a\tdefaulter.  This plea was  rejected  by\t 1st
\nAppellate Court on the ground that no prayer for  adjustment
\nin writing had been made by the defendant-tenant and, there-
\nfore,\the  could  not\tbe  permitted  to  claim  any\tsuch
\nadjustment.   The  appeal  and the  cross  objections  were,
\ntherefore,   dismissed.\t  The  Second  Appeal,\tas   already
\nnoticed, was dismissed by the High Court in limine.
\nIn this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-tenant has
\nconfined his submission to the question of adjustment of the
\nexcess rent received by the landlord against the arrears and
\nit  was submitted that had the excess payment of  Rs.10\t per
\nmonth  made by the tenant from September 1968  to  September
\n1975,  amounting to Rs.840, been taken into  account  toward
\nthe  claim  of\tarrears, the  plaintiff-landlord  could\t not
\nobtain\tthe decree of either arrears of rent or of  eviction
\nagainst\t the tenant.  In support of his submission,  learned
\ncounsel\t has relied upon the judgment of this Court in\tMohd
\nSalimuddin  v.\tMisri  Lal  and\t Anr.,<\/a>\t[1986]\t1  SCR\t622.
\nReliance was also placed on M\/s. Sanvan Kumar Onkar Nath  v.
\nSubhas\tKumar Agarwalla,<\/a> [1987] SCC 546 Learned counsel\t for
\nthe  respondent on the other hand placed reliance  upon\t the
\njudgment of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in  Gulab
\nChand  Prasad v. Budhwanti and Anr., AIR 1985 Patna  327  to
\nurge that excess rent paid by the tenant to his landlord  in
\npursuance  of a mutually agreed illegal\t enhancement,  could
\nnot get automatically ad-\n<\/p>\n
376<\/span><\/p>\n
justed against the subsequent defaults in the payment of the
\nmonthly rent under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Before\twe take up the judgments relied upon by the  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the  parties for consideration,  it  would  be
\nappropriate  to first notice some of the admitted  facts  in
\nthe case,
\nIt  is\tan admitted case of the parties before us  that\t the
\nrent  of the premises was Rs.55 per month and that  the\t sum
\nhad  been  raised to Rs.65 per month without  following\t the
\nprovision  contained  in the Act, though, according  to\t the
\nlandlord, the tenant had agreed to the increase of the\trent
\nvoluntarily,  Admittedly,  the tenant had been\tin  fact  in
\narrears\t of rent for a period of 7 months and was as such  a
\ndefaulter.\n<\/p>\n
In the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer to  Property
\nAct  served by the landlord on the tenant,  determining\t the
\ntenancy the tenant had been put on notice that his  eviction
\nwas sought not only on the ground of bonafide requirement of
\nthe landlord but also on the ground that he was a  defaulter
\nin  the payment of rent.  In response to the notice, it\t was
\nasserted  that the rent had been arbitrarily increased\tfrom
\nRs.55 per month to Rs.65 per month and it was asserted\tthat
\nthe  tenant was not a defaulter.  However, no adjustment  of
\nthe excess payment of rent was claimed against the  arrears.
\nIn the plaint filed by the landlord, the claim of arrears of
\nrent  amounting to Rs, 630 was specifically made and  though
\nin  the\t written  statement, the claim was  refuted  but  no
\nadjustment  of\tthe  excess rent paid  was  claimed  in\t the
\nwritten statement either.  Before the Trial Court also,.  as
\nit  would  appear from the judgment of the Trial  Court,  no
\nsuch plea was raised.\n<\/p>\n
It is in this fact situation, that we shall now consider the
\nsubmissions made by the learned counsel for the tenant about
\nthe  right  of the tenant to the adjustment  of\t the  excess
\namount against subsequent arrears.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section 4 of the Act reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “4.   Enhancement\t of  rent   of\t buildings.-\n<\/p>\n
\t      Notwithstanding  anything\t contained  in\t any
\n\t      agreement or law to the contrary, it shall not
\n\t      be  lawful  for any landlord to  increase,  or
\n\t      claim  any  increase  in\tthe  rent  which  is
\n\t      payable  for the time being in respect of\t any
\n\t      building\t except\t in  accordance\t  with\t the
\n\t      provisions of this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
 377<\/span><\/p>\n
This  Section  which  begins with  the\tnon-obstante  clause
\ndeclares that any agreement to’ increase the rent except  in
\naccordance with the provisions of the Act, would not only be
\nvoid  but  indeed illegal, The Section creates\tan  absolute
\nprohibition against illegal increase or enhancement of\trent
\nexcept\tin the manner provided by the provisions of the\t Act
\nitself and lays down that it is not even permissible for the
\nparties\t to contract themselves out of such  a\tprohibition.
\nThus,  on  its\tplain language, any  increase  or  claim  to
\nincrease  in the rent by the landlord would be unlawful\t and
\nany  agreement\tto  do\tso except  in  accordance  with\t the
\nprovisions of the Act would not cure the illegality.  Since,
\nthe  rent payable in the instant case as has  been  admitted
\nbefore\tus and found by the courts below was only Rs.55\t per
\nmonth  and the tenant was made to pay Rs.65 per\t month\tfrom
\n1968  onwards after the property had been purchased  by\t the
\nplaintifflandlord under threat of eviction, it must be\theld
\nthat the increase in the rent from Rs.55 per month to  Rs.65
\nper month was unlawful and the landlord was not entitled  to
\nrecover\t anything more than Rs.55 per month by way of  rent.
\nConsidered in this light, it is manifest at the landlord had
\nillegally  recovered  from the tenant Rs.10 per\t month\tmore
\nthan  what was lawfully due to him.  The question,  however,
\nwhich  arises  for our consideration is whether\t the  excess
\nrent  paid  by\tthe  tenant,  on  account  of  the  unlawful
\nenhancement,  could  be automatically adjusted\tagainst\t the
\nsubsequent defaults in payment of the monthly rent?
\nThe  Act  does\tnot  contain  any  provision  for  automatic
\nadjustment of the excess rent.\tAs already noticed,  neither
\nin reply to the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer  of
\nProperty  Act  nor in the written statement or\tthrough\t any
\nother writing was the adjustment of excess rent towards\t the
\narrears claimed by the tenant from the landlord.  There also
\nwas  no agreement between the parties at any point  of\ttime
\nfor adjustment of the excess rent illegally paid toward\t the
\nrent falling due subsequently.\n<\/p>\n
In Mohd Salimuddin v. Misri Lal and Anr.,<\/a> (supra), the facts
\nwere  that the tenant had advanced a sum of Rs.2,000 to\t the
\nlandlord  in  order to secure the tenancy  by  an  agreement
\nwhich  specifically provided that the loan amount  could  be
\nadjusted  against the rent which accured subsequently.\t The
\nlandlord filed a suit against the tenant for eviction on the
\nground\tof  arrears  of rent.\tThe  lower  Appellate  Court
\ndimissed the suit holding that the tenant was not in arrears
\nof rent since the amount
\n378<\/span>
\nadvanced by the tenant as loan as per the agreement could be
\nadjusted against the rent and the said amount was sufficient
\nto cover the landlord’s claim of arrears.  The High Court in
\nthe  Second Appeal filed by the landlord however  set  aside
\nthe  judgment  of the 1st Appellate Court holding  that\t the
\nloan  advanced\tby  the tenant being  in  violation  of\t the
\nprovisions  contained in Section 3 of the Act could  not  be
\nadjusted  and  that the tenant was in arrears  of  rent\t and
\ntherefore  liable  to be evicted.  On an appeal\t by  special
\nleave this Court noticed the following admitted facts:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1) The tenant had advanced a sum of  Rs.2000
\n\t      under an agreement which inter alia  contained
\n\t      a\t stipulation that the loan amount was to  be
\n\t      adjusted against the rent which accured.
\n\t      (2)  The amount so advanced by the tenant\t was
\n\t      sufficient  to cover the landlord’s  claim  of
\n\t      arrears.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   If\tthe  loan  amount  was\t accordingly
\n\t      adjusted\ttowards the rent which accrued,\t the
\n\t      tenant was not in arrears of rent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This Court did not agree with the High Court that since\t the
\nloan  advanced\tby  the\t tenant\t was  in  violation  of\t the
\nprohibition  contained\tin  Section 3 of the  Rent  Ac,\t the
\ntenant\twas  not entitled to claim adjustment  of  the\tloan
\namount\t against  rent\twhich  had   accrued   subsequently.
\nAllowing  the appeal the Court rejected the  application  of
\ndoctrine  of  pari  delicto  to the facts  of  the  case  by
\nobserving:\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  doctrine of pari delicto is not  designed
\n\t      to reward the ‘wrong-doer’, or to penalize the
\n\t      ‘wronged’,   by  denying\tto  the\t victim\t  of
\n\t      exploitation access to justice.  The  doctrine
\n\t      is attracted only when none of the parties  is
\n\t      a\t victim of such exploitation and  both\tpar-
\n\t      ties  have voluntarily and by their free\twill
\n\t      joined hands to flout the law for their mutual
\n\t      gain.   Such  being  the\tposition  the\tsaid
\n\t      doctrine embodying the rule that a party to  a
\n\t      transaction  prohibited by law cannot  enforce
\n\t      his  claim in a Court of law is not  attracted
\n\t      in a situation like the present……..”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Consequently,  the  judgment and decree passed by  the\tHigh
\nCourt was set
\n 379<\/span>
\naside  and that of the 1st Appellate Court  restored.\tThis
\nJudgment,  has\tno application to the facts of\tthe  present
\ncase  as  leaving aside everything else,  the  agreement  by
\nwhich  the sum of Rs.2,000 had been advanced, by the  tenant
\nto  the\t landlord to secure the\t tenancy,  had\tspecifically
\nprovided that the loan amount could be adjusted against\t the
\nrent  which  may accure subsequently.  It  would  have\tbeen
\nperpetuating immorality if the landlord after taking loan of
\nRs.   2,000  with  the\tclear  stipulation   regarding\t its
\nadjustment  against arrears falling due subsequently was  to
\nrely  on  the  illegal nature of the  transaction  and\tdeny
\nadjustment.   There  is\t not even a demand,  much  less\t any
\nagreement,  between  the  parties in the  present  case\t for
\nadjustment  of\tthe  excess amount of  rent  illegally\tpaid
\ntowards the rent accruing subsequently.\n<\/p>\n
In  M\/s\t Sarwan Kumar Onkar Nath v. Subhas  Kumar  Agarwalla<\/a>
\n(supra), the facts were as follows:\n<\/p>\n
The appellant was a lessee of the building belonging to\t the
\nrespondent on a monthly rent of Rs.70. At the time of taking
\nthe  premises  on rent, he paid in advance two\tmonths\trent
\ni.e.  Rs.140. The appellant paid rent  regularly  thereafter
\nbut did not pay rent for the months of September and October
\n1972.\tTaking advantage of the non-payment of the  rent  in
\nrespect\t of  the said two  months,  the\t respondent-landlord
\nfiled  a petition for eviction against the  appellant-tenant
\ncontending  that the appellant being a defaulter in  payment
\nof rent for two months had become liable to be evicted\tfrom
\nthe  premises in quention under clause (d) of Section  11(1)
\nof  the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and  Eviction)  Control
\nAct,  1947.   The tenant pleaded inter alia in\this  written
\nstatement that from the time of inception of the tenany,  he
\nhad paid the respondent a sum of Rs.140 as advance rent with
\nan understanding that the amount of advance could be set off
\nagainst\t the  rent whenever necessary or required  and\tthat
\nsince  under Section 3 of the Act it was not lawful for\t the
\nlandlord to claim to receive, in consideration of the grant,
\nrenewal\t or continuance of the tenancy of any building,\t any
\namount by way of advance or premium the appellant could\t not
\nbe  considered\tto  be\ta  defaulter  in  payment  of  rent.
\nAgreeing  with\tthe  plea of the  tenant,  the\tTrial  Court
\ndismised  the  suit  and the appeal filed  by  the  landlord
\nbefore\tthe Additional Subordinate Judge also  failed.\t The
\nlandlord  filed a Second Appeal before the High Court.\t The
\nHigh Court on facts found that the tenant had failed to\t pay
\nthe  rent for the months of September and October 1972.\t  It
\naccepted the plea of the tenant that he
\n380<\/span>
\nhad paid the sum of Rs.140 as rent in advance but set  aside
\nthe  concurrent judgments of the Courts below on the  ground
\nthat  since  the tenant had neither..orally nor\t in  writing
\ninformed  the  landlord that he was exercising\tthe  option,
\nunder  the agreement, to adjust the amount paid\t in  advance
\ntowards the rent due for the months of September and October
\n1972  he  could not get the benefit of that amount  paid  to
\nsave  himself from eviction.  This Court allowed the  appeal
\nand  held that the tenant was, in view of the  advance\tpaid
\nand  the  agreement between the parties, not in\t arrears  of
\nrent  and  setting  aside the judgment\tof  the\t High  Court
\nrestored that of the Trial Court which had been affirmed  by
\nthe 1st Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
This  Court took notice of the fact that though the  receipt
\nunder  which  the advance rent of Rs.140 had been  paid\t did
\nstate  that the amount received ‘was liable to\tbe  adjusted
\ntowards\t the arrear of rent only on the appellant  informing
\nthe respondent orally or in writing that such adjustment  is
\nto be made” but it construed the plea set out in the written
\nstatement  to  adjust the advance towards the  rent  due  as
\namounting  to an assertion as contemplated by the  agreement
\nand  therefore\tit  was held that the tenant  could  not  be
\ntreated as a defaulter.\t Sarwan Kumar’s case also is not  an
\nauthority  for the proposition of “automatic adjustment”  as
\ncanvassed  by learned counsel for the appellant because\t the
\nconstruction  placed by this Court on the written  statement
\nin Sarwan Kumar’s case was to the effect that the tenant had
\nsought\tadjustment of the advance paid against the rent\t for
\ntwo months.  That judgment also, therefore, does not advance
\nthe case of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
On  the other hand, the opinion expressed by the Full  Bench
\nof  the Patna High Court in Gulab Chand Prasad v.  Budhwanti
\nand  Anr., which has received the seal of approval  of\tthis
\nCourt in Budhwanti and Anr. v. Gulab Chand Prasad,’<\/a>[1987]  2
\nSCC  153  fully\t supports the case  of\tthe  landlord.\t The
\nprecise\t question  which was considered by  the\t Patna\tHigh
\nCourt was:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether the excess rent paid by the tenant to
\n\t      his landlord, consequent upon a mutual (though
\n\t      illegal)\t enhancement   of  rent\t  would\t  be
\n\t      automatically adjusted against all  subsequent
\n\t      defaults\tin  payment  of\t monthly  rent\t for
\n\t      purposes\tof  Ss.\t 4, 5 and 11  of  the  Bihar
\n\t      Buildings\t (Lease, Rent and Eviction)  Control
\n\t      Act, 1947
\n 381<\/span>
\nAfter  a  detailed discussion and reference to a  catena  of
\nauthorities,  the answer to the above question was  rendered
\nin the negative and it was held that the excess rent paid by
\nthe   tenant  in  pursuance  of\t mutually   agreed   illegal
\nenchancement   thereof\t by  the  parties   does   not\t get
\nautomatically  adjusted against the subsequent\tdefaults  in
\nthe payment of the monthly rent under the Act and even under
\nthe  general  law  such\t an  automatic\tadjustment  is\t not
\ncountenanced.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Madras  High Court in Nune Panduranga  Rao\t v.  Divvala
\nGopala\tRao,  AIR  1952 (Madras)  827  while  construings  a
\nsomewhat similar provision contained in Section 7(2) of\t the
\nMadras Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act held:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Under the express provisions of this  section
\n\t      if  the  tenant has not paid or  tendered\t the
\n\t      rent  due\t by him within the  time  prescribed
\n\t      therein  he  is  liable to  be  evicted.\t The
\n\t      section  does not compel a landlord to  adjust
\n\t      the  excess amounts in his hands\ttowards\t any
\n\t      arrears  of rent if the said amounts were\t not
\n\t      paid  by\tthe tenant towards the rent  of\t any
\n\t      particular month.\t It is true that on the date
\n\t      when  a  tenant authorities  the\tlandlord  to
\n\t      adjust  the amounts with him towards the\trent
\n\t      of  any particular month or months the  amount
\n\t      will be deemed to have been paid on that\tdate
\n\t      towards  rent.   But till that  adjustment  is
\n\t      made  and the amount is so  appropriated,\t any
\n\t      amounts  in  excess of the rent due  with\t the
\n\t      landlord\t will  only  be\t payments  made\t  in
\n\t      suspense.\t The facs that such excess came into
\n\t      the  hands  of the landlord by reason  of\t the
\n\t      Rent  Controller’s order fixing the fair\trent
\n\t      does  not really affect the question.   I\t am,
\n\t      therefore, of opinion that the amount not paid
\n\t      towards  rent of any particular month and\t the
\n\t      amount  not agreed to be adjusted towards\t any
\n\t      rent  of a particular month is not Payment  of
\n\t      rent within the meaning of S.7(2) of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(Emphasis supplied)
\nWe are in broad agreement with the view of the Full Bench of
\nthe  Patna  High  Court and the Madras\tHigh  Court  on\t the
\nquestion  of ‘automatic adjustment’ and hold that  a  tenant
\ncannot save himself from the consequences of eviction  under
\nthe Act on the ground of default in the payment
\n382<\/span>
\nof rent by claiming automatic adjustment of any excess\trent
\npaid  consequent  upon mutual enhancement of rent,  even  if
\nillegal unless there is an agreement between the parties for
\nsuch  an  adjustment.  The tenant may also in a\t given\tcase
\nseek  adjustment  of  the excess rent in the  hands  of\t the
\nlandlord  against  the arrears by  specifically\t asking\t the
\nlandlord for such an adjustment before filing of the suit or
\nin  response to the notice to quit and even in\tthe  written
\nstatement by way of set off within the period of  limitation
\nand by following the procedure for claiming such a set\toff,
\nwhile  resisting  the claim for eviction on  the  ground  of
\ndefault\t in payment of arrears of rent but be  cannot  claim
\n‘automatic adjustment’.\n<\/p>\n
Thus,  in the facts and circumstances of this case, we\tfind
\nthat the 1st Appellate Court was fully justified in  holding
\nthat  the tenant could not get any automatic  adjustment  of
\nthe  excess  rent paid against the subsequent  defaults\t and
\nsince  the tenant had been found on admitted facts to be  in
\ndefault\t in  the  payment of rent,  his\t eviction  was\twell
\nmerited.   The\tjudgment of the High  Court  dismissing\t the
\nsecond\tappeal,\t directed against  concurrent  findings,  in
\nlimine,\t does  not call for any interference.\tThis  appeal
\nconsequently fails and is dismissed but without any order as
\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant, however, is given time till 31st May,  1993,
\nto yield vacant possession to the landlord subject to filing
\nof the usual undertaking within three weeks from today.
\nV.P.R.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
383<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 1498, 1993 SCR (2) 369 Author: A Anand Bench: Anand, A.S. (J) PETITIONER: BHOJA @ BHOJA RAM GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMESHWAR AGARWALA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/03\/1993 BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH: ANAND, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-17T05:56:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-17T05:56:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993\"},\"wordCount\":4100,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993\",\"name\":\"Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-17T05:56:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-17T05:56:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993","datePublished":"1993-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-17T05:56:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993"},"wordCount":4100,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993","name":"Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-17T05:56:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoja-bhoja-ram-gupta-vs-rameshwar-agarwala-and-ors-on-16-march-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhoja @ Bhoja Ram Gupta vs Rameshwar Agarwala And Ors on 16 March, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105067","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}