{"id":138416,"date":"1964-01-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-01-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964"},"modified":"2017-05-04T16:49:56","modified_gmt":"2017-05-04T11:19:56","slug":"v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964","title":{"rendered":"V.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
V.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 440, \t\t 1964 SCR (6) 181<\/div>\n
Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nV.N.VASUDEVA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSETH KIRORIMAL LUHARIWALA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n09\/01\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR  440\t\t  1964 SCR  (6) 181\n\n\nACT:\nRent  Control-Order  for deposit of  rent  at  interlocutory\nstage-If  proper-Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of  1958),\ns.  15(1)-Indian  Income-tax  Act, 1922\t (11  of  1922),  s.\n46(5A).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent\t made an application against  the  appellant\nunder s.  14  of the Delhi Rent Control Act.  In  reply\t the\nappellant pleaded\n182\nthat the respondent had no right to recover rent from him as\na  notice under s. 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax  Act\t had\nbeen  issued by the Income-tax Officer, that the  respondent\nhad  no locus standi as the property was in the\t custody  of\nthe  Court  and a receiver had been appointed and  that\t his\nprofessional  fees were agreed and be adjusted\ttowards\t the\nrent  dues.  The Rent Controller recorded the  statement  of\nthe  appellant\tand  after hearing  arguments  directed\t the\nappellant under s. 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958\nto deposit back rents at Rs. 300\/- per month.\nOn appeal the decision of the Rent Controller was  affirmed,\nand a further appeal to the High Court also failed.\nThe  appellant contended that the order under s.  15(1)\t for\ndeposit\t of rent could only be made at the end of  the\tcase\nand not at an interlocutory stage.\nHeld:(i)  that the order under sub-s. (1) of s.\t 15  is\nnot  a\tfinal order but is preliminary to the trial  of\t the\ncase  and is made only wherer the rent has in fact not\tbeen\npaid.\tFor  the  purpose of an interim\t order\tit  was\t not\nnecessary that there should have been a fun trial and,\tthat\nthis  was clear from the latter part of sub-s. (1) of s.  15\nbecause\t under it not only the arrears have to be  deposited\nbut rent as it falls due has to be deposited month by  month\nby the 15th of each succeeding month.\nNalinakhya  Bysack and Anr. v. Shyam Sunder  Halder,  A.I.R.<\/a>\n1952 Cal. 198, distinguished.\n(ii)The\t notice under s. 46(5A) of the Income-tax  Act\tdid\nnot amount to a garnishee order and the appellant could make\npayment\t to the rent controller without\t incurring  personal\nliability  because  the rent controller had  stated  in\t his\norder  that the amount would not be paid to any one  till  a\nclearance  certificate\twas  obtained  from  the  Income-tax\nDepartment.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1041 of 1963.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and order,  dated
\nSeptember 2, 1963, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit  Bench)
\nat Delhi in L.P.A. No. 119-D of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
S.T. Desai, J. B.  Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and\t Ravinder
\nNarain, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
H.N.  Sanyal,  Solicitor-General  of  India  and  B.   P.
\nMaheshwari, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
183<\/span><\/p>\n
January 9, 1964.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHIDAYATULLAH  J.-This is an appeal by special leave  against
\nthe order of the High Court, Punjab, dated August 14,  1963,
\nby  which an order of the Rent Controller under s. 15(1)  of
\nthe Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, directing the appellant to
\ndeposit back rents at Rs. 300 per month from 1st July, 1957,
\nwas  confirmed.\t  The High Court granted the  appellant\t one
\nmonth’s time from the date of its own order, as the original
\ntime had already run out.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant is an advocate, who is practising  at  Delhi.
\nHe  is\toccupying No. 43, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi  as  a
\ntenant,\t and his landlord Seth Kirori Mal Luhariwala is\t the
\nrespondent  in this appeal.  The tenancy commenced  on\tJuly
\n28, 1957, and the memorandum of tenancy, dated July 1, 1957,
\nproduced in the case, shows that the premises were taken  on
\na  monthly  tent of Rs. 300.  The memorandum  also  contains
\nother  terms which need not be mentioned here, because\tthey
\nare  not  relevant to the present appeal.  It  appears\tthat
\nSeth Kirori Mal was in arrears in payment of his income-tax,
\nand  a\tsum of Rs. 39,00,000 was outstanding from  him.\t  On
\nOctober 31, 1957, the Income-tax Officer Central Circle, New
\nDelhi,\t to  whom  all\tcases  of  Seth\t Kirori\t  Mal\twere
\ntransferred,  issued  a\t notice to the\tappellant  under  s.
\n46(5A) of the Indian Income-fax Act directing him to deposit
\nwith  the Income-tax Officer all sums due by way of rent  as
\nalso  future  rents.  The appellant sent no  reply  to\tthis
\nnotice.\t He had, however,on September 29, 1957, addressed  a
\nletter\tto  the respondent Seth Kirori Mal.   The  reply  of
\nKirori Mal, dated October 15, 1957, figured in the arguments
\na great deal, and as it is brief, it may be quoted here:
\n“From
\nTO
\nDated Faigarh, the 15th October, 1957,
\n184<\/span>
\nDear Sir,
\nWith reference to letter No. M-17-58, dated 29th  September,
\n1957,  1 am to write that you may please adjust\t six  months
\nrent of 43, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, i.e., Rs. 1800 (rent
\nfrom 1-10-57 to 31-3-1958) towards your professional fee  in
\npart payment thereof.  The balance of your fee will be\tpaid
\nlater at the time of final settlement.\n<\/p>\n
Yours faithfully,
\n(Sd.) Paluram Dhanania,
\nFor Kirorimal Luhariwala.\n<\/p>\n
Kirori\tMal also sent a receipt, dated October 16, 1957,  or
\nthe amount, and is item 23 in the record.\n<\/p>\n
Kirori\tMal  had litigation in Calcutta.  He had  brought  a
\nsuit against four defendants, claiming the present  property
\nas  his “absolute” and “exclusive  self-acquired  property”.
\nThe case was pending in the High Court and on May 1,  1.958,
\nan  order was made appointing one Chakravarti as a  Receiver
\nof  the\t properties  including No.  43,\t Prithvi  Raj  Road.
\nChakravarti  also  sent\t a notice on July 8,  1958,  to\t the
\nappellant  demanding rent already due and also as  and\twhen
\ndue.  To this notice, the appellant sent a reply on July 19,
\n1958.\tHe  referred to the payment of\trent  by  adjustment
\ntowards fees for the period 1st October, 1957 to 31st March,
\n1958, which was the subject of the letter above.  He  stated
\nthat  as  regards  rent after 1st April,  1958,\t he  had  no
\nobjection  to  pay the amount to the Receiver or  any  other
\nclaimant  but regretted that it was not possible for him  to
\nmake  the payment because of the notice served upon  him  by
\nthe  Income-tax Officer.  He asked the Receiver to  get\t the
\nnotice withdrawn, and stated that he would be glad to  remit
\nthe  amount  of\t rent to him when that was  done.   He\talso
\nraised\tthe question of certain other expenses which he\t had
\nincurred  in connection with the house which he\t claimed  he
\nwas entitled to deduct from the rent and informed that a few
\nrepairs\t were, required in the house.  A second\t letter\t was
\nsent  by the Official Receiver on September 5. 1959,  making
\nanother demand.\t In his reply, dated September 14, 1959,  to
\nthis letter, the appellant raised the
\n185<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
-question  that a sum of Rs. 23,500 was payable to  him\t for
\n_professional services rendered by him to Seth Kirori Mal.\n<\/p>\n
-He stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “You  will  therefore  appreciate\t that  I  am
\n\t      entitled\tto adjust the rent  payable  against
\n\t      the  fees due to me and the amount due  to  me
\n\t      will  absorb  the rent for a little  over\t six
\n\t      years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Even before this Seth Kirori Mal had paid me a
\n\t      sum  of Rs. 1800 by way of adjustment of\trent
\n\t      towards  my professional fees due.  You  will,
\n\t      therefore, kindly agree that the rent  payable
\n\t      is adjustable against the professional fee due
\n\t      to me.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
With this letter, he enclosed a copy of a statement of\tfees\n<\/p>\n
-amounting  to\tRs.  23,500 which he had  submitted  to\t his
\n,client on February 4, 1959.  The Official Receiver then in-
\nformed the appellant that the party concerned had denied the
\nclaim  for  fees as absolutely false, and  observed  in\t his
\nletter\tthat the professional fees should be the subject  of\n<\/p>\n
-some other proceeding but the rent should be paid  with,out
\ndelay.\tHe enquired if the amount of rent had been paid\t ‘to
\nthe Income-tax department in response to the notice.  In his
\nreply to this letter, on July 5, 1960, the appellant for the
\nfirst  time stated that there was an agreement\tbetween\t him
\nand  Seth  Kirori  Mal\tto  adjust  the\t rent  towards\t his
\nprofessional  fees  until  the fees  were  fully  paid.\t  He
\noffered\t -to  reduce  the fees if Seth Kirori  Mal  had\t any
\nobjection,  but stated that till the professional fees\twere
\nrecouped, no rent could be considered to be due from him.
\nOn  November 25, 1960, Seth Kirori Mal applied to  the\tHigh
\nCourt at Calcutta for directions to the Official Receiver to
\ntake appropriate proceedings to realise the arrears of\trent
\nfrom the appellant, and on December 19, 1960, the High Court
\nappointed Seth Kirori Mal receiver in the case.\t Seth Kirori
\nMal  then  served  a notice on December\t 23,  1960,  on\t the
\nappellant  to pay the arrears of rent.\tTo this notice,\t the
\nappellant  sent\t a detailed reply which, in  substance,\t has
\nbeen  his  defence  in\tthe  proceedings  before  the\tRent
\nController, from which the present appeal has arisen.\n<\/p>\n
186<\/span><\/p>\n
On  January  4, 1961, Seth Kirori Mal  made  an\t application
\nunder  s. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act before  the\tRent
\nController,  Delhi.   In his written statement in  reply  to
\nthat application, the appellant pleaded that Seth Kirori Mal
\nhad no right to recover rent from him, inasmuch as a. notice
\nunder  s.  46(5A)  of the Indian Income-tax  Act  had.\tbeen
\nissued\tby  the Income-tax Officer, Central  Circle  V,\t New
\nDelhi.\t He pleaded that the property was in the custody  of
\nthe  Court,  and  that\tinasmuch  as  a\t receiver  had\tbeen
\nappointed,  Kirori Mal had no locus stands to  maintain\t the
\npetition  denying  at  the same time  that  Kirori  Mal\t had
\ninformed  him that he had been appointed a receiver  of\t the
\nproperty.  The appellant also contended that under the\tRent
\nControl Act, a receiver had no right to act on behalf of the
\nlandlord.   He\treferred to the alleged agreement  by  which
\nfees were, to be recouped from rent as and when it fell due,
\npointing  out that on an earlier occasion a sum of Rs.\t1800
\nwas allowed to be adjusted towards fees.  Some other  please
\nwere  raised,  but  it is not necessary\t to  refer  to\tthem
\nbecause they were not raised before us.\n<\/p>\n
The  notice  to\t quit which the appellant  alleged  was\t not
\nissued\tto him was filed in the Court of the  Controller  on
\nMay  17, 1961.\tThe appellant was ordered to inspect it\t and
\nto  be ready for his statement as to the correctness of\t the
\nnotice.\t On the next date, a statement of the appellant\t was
\nrecorded and he denied the notice and also its receipt.\t The
\ncase  was then set down for arguments and after hearing\t the
\narguments, the Rent Controller passed his order on July\t 22,
\n1961.\tThe Rent Controller held that there was no proof  on
\nthe  file to show that the respondent had any right to\tmake
\nan adjustment of the rent against his professional dues.  He
\nheld that the rent was not paid after March 31. 1958.\tWith
\nregard\tto  the plea that a notice under s.  46(5A)  of\t the
\nIncome-tax  Act, 1922, had been issued. the Rent  Controller
\nobserved  that the amount, if deposited in his court,  would
\nnot  be\t paid to Kirori Mal unless he produced\ta  clearance
\ncertificate  from  the\tIncome-tax  Department.\t  The\tRent
\nController   also  said\t that  if  in  the  enquiry  to\t  be
\nsubsequently made, the tenant proved that the amount of fees
\nhad  to be recouped from rent. the amount would not be\tpaid
\nto Kirori Mal.\n<\/p>\n
187<\/span><\/p>\n
Against\t the decision of the Rent Controller, the  appellant
\nfiled an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal.  The\tRent
\nControl\t Tribunal affirmed the decision of  the\t Controller,
\nobserving  that the plea taken by him that his\tprofessional
\nfees were to come out of rent was an after-thought and there
\nwas  no evidence to prove that there was such  an  agreement
\nbetween\t the  parties.\t On  other  matters,  the   Tribunal
\nexpressed  its\tagreement  with the  Rent  Controller.\t The
\nappellant  then appealed to the High Court of  Punjab.\t The
\nHigh  Court  upheld the orders so far made and\tpointed\t out
\nthat in the letter dated July 19, 1958, to the Receiver, the
\nappellant  had not mentioned the agreement.  The High  Court
\nhi-,Id\tthat  the order made under s. 15(1) of the  Act\t was
\nproper,\t because it was an admitted fact that rent  had\t not
\nbeen  paid  to anybody from April 1, 1958.  The\t High  Court
\nendorsed the view of the Tribunals below that the notice  of
\nthe Income-tax Officer did not come in the way of making the
\ndeposit\t of the rent in the office of the  Rent\t Controller,
\nbecause\t the  amount was not to be paid to anyone  till\t the
\nRent Controller had decided who was entitled to receive\t it.
\nThe appeal was therefore dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
In  this court, emphasis is laid upon the letter of  October
\n15, 1957, by Kirori Mal in which there was an adjustment  of
\nRs.  1800 towards fees.\t It was contended that there was  an
\noral agreement to use the rent to pay the professional fees.
\nThe  letter  itself does not show that there  was  any\tsuch
\nagreement.  In fact it shows the contrary where it says:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  balance of your fees will be paid  later
\n\t      at the time of final settlement.”\n<\/p>\n
This shows that the appellant was not entitled to retain the
\nrent in his hands, and the Tribunals below were justified in
\nsaying\tthat the plea about the so-called agreement  was  an
\nafter-thought,\tbecause till September 14, 1959, the  appel-
\nlant  had  not\tmentioned such an agreement.   We  are\talso
\nsatisfied  that\t the plea was a mere device  to\t retain\t the
\nmoney  and to avoid paying the rent.  It must be  remembered
\nthat there were as many as four claimants, viz., the Income-
\ntax  Officer,  the  Receiver and Kirori Mal  in\t person\t and
\nKirori
\n188<\/span>
\nMal as Receiver, but the appellant avoided each of these  in
\nturn by pointing to the others, and in this way continued to
\noccupy the premises without payment of any rent.
\nIt  was contended however as a matter of law that a   proper
\nopportunity  ought  to have been given to the  appellant  to
\nprove his plea by leading evidence before ordering that\t the
\nrent be deposited.  Mr. S. T. Desai contended that under  s.
\n15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, an order for deposit of
\narrears\t of rent can only be made after the tenant has\tbeen
\ngiven  an opportunity of being heard, because if the  tenant
\nmakes a payment or deposit as required of him, the  landlord
\nis  entitled  to  take the amount of  the  deposit  and\t the
\nController  can award such costs as he may deem fit  to\t the
\nlandlord and the case comes to an end.\tBy way of  contrast,
\nhe pointed out that the case proceeds if the tenant fails to
\nmake  the payment or deposit as required of him.   In  other
\nwords,\tit  was contended that an order under s.  15(1)\t for
\ndeposit\t of rent should only be made at the end of the\tcase
\nand not at an interlocutory stage.  Mr. Desai contended that
\nthe present order was made at an interlocutory stage and  it
\nwas wrong, because if the tenant deposited the money,  there
\nwould  be no further hearing and his plea that there was  an
\nagreement  between the parties that the rent as and when  it
\nfell  due should be set off against the\t professional  fees,
\nwould  remain untried.\tIn our opinion, this reading is\t not
\npermissible.   Section\t15  (omitting  such  parts  as\t are
\nunnecessary for the present purpose) reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section\t15.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   In every proceeding for the recovery  of
\n\t      possession  of  any  premises  on\t the  ground
\n\t      specified\t in  clause (a) of  the\t proviso  to
\n\t      subsection  (1) of section 14, the  Controller
\n\t      shall, after giving the parties an opportunity
\n\t      of  being\t heard, the an order  directing\t the
\n\t      tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit\twith
\n\t      the Controller within one month of the date of
\n\t      the order, an amount calculated at the rate of
\n\t      rent at which it was last paid for the  period
\n\t      for which the arrears of the rent were legally
\n\t      recoverable from the ten-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      189<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      ant including the period subsequent thereto up
\n\t      to  the end of the month previous to  that  in
\n\t      which payment or deposit is made and to conti-
\n\t      nue  to pay or deposit month by month, by\t the
\n\t      fifteenth\t of  each succeeding  month,  a\t sum
\n\t      equivalent to the rent at that rate.
\n\t      (3)   If,\t in  any proceeding referred  to  in
\n\t      subsection (1) or sub-section 2), there is any
\n\t      dispute  as to the amount of rent\t payable  by
\n\t      the  tenant,  the\t Controller  shall,   within
\n\t      fifteen days of the date of the first  hearing
\n\t      of  the  proceeding, fix an  interim  rent  in
\n\t      relation\tto  the\t premises  to  be  paid\t  or
\n\t      deposited in accordance with the provisions of
\n\t      sub-section (1) or subsection (2), as the case
\n\t      may  be, until the standard rent\tin  relation
\n\t      thereto\tis  fixed  having  regard   to\t the
\n\t      provisions  of  this Act, and  the  amount  of
\n\t      arrears,\tif any, calculated on the  basis  of
\n\t      the  standard rent shall be paid or  deposited
\n\t      by the tenant within next month of the date on
\n\t      which  the  standard  rent is  fixed  or\tsuch
\n\t      further  time as the Controller may  allow  in
\n\t      this behalf.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (6)   If a tenant makes payment or deposit  as
\n\t      required\tby  sub-section (1)  or\t sub-section
\n\t      (3),  no order shall be made for the  recovery
\n\t      of possession on the ground of default in\t the
\n\t\t\t    payment   of  rent\tby  the\t tenant
\nbut   the
\n\t      Controller may allow such costs as he may deem
\n\t      fit to the. landlord.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (7)   If\ta tenant -fails to make\t payment  or
\n\t      deposit  as  required  by\t this  section\t the
\n\t      Controller  may  order  the  defence   against
\n\t      eviction to be struck out and proceed with the
\n\t      hearing of the application.”\n<\/p>\n
It will be noticed that sub-section (3) also contemplates
\n190<\/span>
\npayment of interim rent determined by the Controller  before
\nthe  entire  dispute is settled.  Sub-section (6)  puts\t the
\ncase under sub-s. (1) and sub-s. (3) on the same footing and
\nmakes  no distinction between them.  It is also possible  to
\nvisualise  cases in which the tenant may deposit the  amount
\nof  rent under protest and claim that his defence be  tried.
\nIt is not that even on the deposit of the arrears of rent in
\nthese  circumstances  the case would come to  an  end.\t The
\nlatter\tpart of sub-section (1) further shows that not\tonly
\nthe  arrears have to be deposited but rent as it  falls\t due
\nhas  to\t be  deposited month by month by the  15th  of\teach
\nsucceeding month.  This also shows that the order under sub-
\nsection\t (1) is not a final order but is preliminary to\t the
\ntrial  of  the case and is made only where the rent  has  in
\nfact not been paid.  For the purpose of an interim order  it
\nwas not necessary that there should have been a full  trial.
\nThe  Rent Controller had the affidavit of the appellant\t and
\nhe could judge whether in the circumstances of the case,  an
\ninterim order ought or ought not to be made.  He came to the
\nconclusion  that the rent was not paid and the plea that  it
\nwas  being withheld under an agreement was  an\tafterthought
\nand not true.  The High Court and the Rent Control  Tribunal
\nhave  agreed with this view of the Rent Controller  and\t the
\nconclusion  appears  to\t us  to\t be  sound.   Once  such   a
\nconclusion  is reached, it is quite manifest that the  order
\nwas made after affording an opportunity to the appellant  to
\nbe heard.  No doubt, the appellant is entitled to lead\toral
\nevidence in regard to the agreement he alleges, but for that
\nhe will have an opportunity hereafter.\tAt the moment, he is
\nbeing\tasked  to  deposit  the\t arrears  in  court,   which
\nadmittedly are outstanding.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Desai  next contended that the notice under  s.  46(5A)
\namounted  to a garnishee order and the appellant could\tnot,
\nwhile  the notice stood, make any payment without  incurring
\npersonal  liability.   There was no question of\t a  personal
\nliability  because  the Rent Controller had  stated  in\t his
\norder  that the amount would not be paid to anyone till\t the
\nclearance  certificate\twas  obtained  from  the  Income-tax
\nDepartment.  The Rent Controller had informed the income-tax
\nauthorities and the appellant ran no risk in depositing\t the
\narrears of rent in the circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
191<\/span><\/p>\n
It  was contended that the notice under s. 46(5A)  -amounted
\nto an attachment of the rent in the hands of the  -appellant
\nand reference was made to the provisions of s. 46 sub-s.  5A
\npara 5. The argument overlooks the next para which provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “Where  a person to whom a notice under\tthis
\n\t      subsection is sent objects to it on the ground
\n\t      that  the sum demanded or any part thereof  is
\n\t      not  due to the assessee or that he  does\t not
\n\t      hold  any\t money\tfor or\ton  account  of\t the
\n\t      assessee,\t then,\tnothing\t contained  in\tthis
\n\t      section shall be deemed to require such person
\n\t      to  pay any such sum or part thereof,  as\t the
\n\t      case may be, to the Income-tax Officer.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
-If  there was an agreement between the parties\t and  Kirori
\nMal  was  indebted for such a large  amount,  the  appellant
\ncould  have objected on the ground that he did not hold\t any
\nmoney  for or on account of the assessee and then  he  would
\nnot  have  been required to pay any sum\t to  the  Income-tax
\n,Officer.  The appellant did nothing in the matter except to
\ndeny  the  payment  to everyone.  He  paid  nothing  to\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer, declined to deposit the money before the
\nRent Controller and refused to recognise the demands by\t the
\nReceiver and his landlord.  In other words, be was trying to
\ntake full advantage of the law, when lie could have informed
\nthe  Income-tax Officer about his own position and paid\t the
\nmoney  to the Rent Controller subject to its being  paid  to
\nthe Income-tax Department.\n<\/p>\n
Reference  was made in this connection to a decision of\t the
\nCalcutta  High\tCourt  reported\t in  Nalinakhya\t Bysack\t and
\nanother\t v.  Shyam  Sunder Halder  and\tothers(1)  in  which
\nHarries C. J. observed that before making an ,order for\t the
\ndeposit\t of the rent, a full enquiry should be\tmade.\tThat
\nwas a case in which the tenant had pleaded that there was an
\nagreement  between  him and the landlord  -that\t any  amount
\nspent  on  repairs  would  be set  off\tagainst\t -the  rent.
\nHarries C.J. held that without ascertaining the
\n(1)  A.I.R, (1952) Cal. 198.\n<\/p>\n
192<\/span><\/p>\n
truth  of  the\tplea that a large sum  had  been,  spent  on
\nrepairs,  an  order to deposit the entire  arrears  of\trent
\nought  not  to have been made.\tIt is quite clear  that\t the
\nfacts  there  were  entirely  different.   Payment  by\t the
\nlandlord for repairs was a part of the tenancy agreement and
\nrent  under  that  tenancycould not  be\t calculated  without
\nadvertence to every term of the agreement of tenancy.\tHere
\nthe  special  agreement\t which is  pleaded  is\toutside\t the
\ntenancy\t agreement  and\t the allegation\t about\tthe  special
\nagreement has been held to bean after-thought and false.  It
\nis  therefore difficult to apply the ruling to\tthe  present
\ncircumstances.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal  is wholly devoid of merit and it  is  dismissed
\nwith  costs.   By the consent of parties, a  period  of\t two
\nmonths from the date of hearing (20-12-1963) was granted  to
\nthe  appellant\tto  deposit the arrears of  rent  from\t1st.
\nApril, 1958, in the Court of the Rent Controller.
\nAppeal dismissed..<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India V.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 440, 1964 SCR (6) 181 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: V.N.VASUDEVA Vs. RESPONDENT: SETH KIRORIMAL LUHARIWALA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/01\/1964 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. SHAH, J.C. CITATION: 1965 AIR 440 1964 SCR (6) 181 ACT: […]<\/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-138416","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nV.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964 - 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\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964\" \/>\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=\"1964-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-04T11:19:56+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-04T11:19:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964\"},\"wordCount\":3461,\"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\\\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964\",\"name\":\"V.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-04T11:19:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"V.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964 - 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\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-04T11:19:56+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964","datePublished":"1964-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-04T11:19:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964"},"wordCount":3461,"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\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964","name":"V.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-04T11:19:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-vasudeva-vs-seth-kirorimal-luhariwala-on-9-january-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.N.Vasudeva vs Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala on 9 January, 1964"}]},{"@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\/138416","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=138416"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138416\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138416"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138416"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138416"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}