Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1980 DIGILAW 540 (ALL)

Mahboob Ahmad v. Zulfiqar Ullah

1980-05-02

K.P.SINGH

body1980
ORDER K.P. Singh, J. -This is defendants writ petition against the judgment of 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge Allahabad, dated 17-9-1976, in Civil Revision No. 11 of 1976, Mahboob Ahmad v. Zulfiquar Ullah and others and arises out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. 2. Necessary facts have been given in the impugned judgment and the parties are not at issue on facts before me. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended before me that both the courts below have patently erred in not giving benefit to the defendant petitioner of the provision of S. 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the eviction of the petitioner is patently erroneous and the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed. 4. Secondly, he has contended that the defendant petitioner had received no notice of enhancement of rent as contemplated by the provisions of Section 5 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hence the courts below have patently erred in decreeing the suit at the enhanced rate. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. He has submitted that it has not been established in the circumstances of the present case that the defendant-petitioner had tendered the amount unconditionally, hence the courts below were fully justified in not giving benefit to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the U, P. Act No. 13 of 1972. He has also emphasised that the enhanced rate of rent was correctly accepted by the courts below in the circumstances of the present case. 6. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the impugned judgment. I find that the revisional court has placed reliance in not giving benefit to the defendant-petitioner of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, on the ruling reported in 1975 All LR 431, Bhola Nath v. Pyare Lal. To my mind the aforesaid ruling is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. To my mind the aforesaid ruling is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, reads as below:- "In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or (tenders to the landlord or deposits in court) the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlords costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-sec. (1) of S. 30, the Court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground". 6-A. In the above provision it has been indicated that the tenant should unconditionally pay or tender to the landlord or deposit in the Court the en- tire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him. The petitioner has not been given benefit in the present case due to the circumstances that he had not actually paid or tendered the amount to the landlord. The 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge. Allahabad has placed reliance upon the ruling of Bhola Nath v. Pyare Lal 1975 All LR 431, but the applicable ruling in the circumstance of the present case is the decision in Ram Kishan v. District Judge reported in 1976, U. P. Rent C, C. 257, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court has expressed himself in paragraph 6 as below:- "It was then urged by counsel for the landlord that Section 20 (4) as it stood on the relevant date contemplated either payment or tender of the rent to the landlord, it did not contemplate any deposit of rent in court. So far as this point is concerned, it will suffice to refer to Section 13 of U. P. Act 28 of 1976. Certain provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act have been amended. So far as this point is concerned, it will suffice to refer to Section 13 of U. P. Act 28 of 1976. Certain provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act have been amended. Section 13 of the Act inter alia, provides in the sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the principal Act for the words "tenders to the landlord", the words "tenders to the landlord or deposits in Court" shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted. In view of this amendment in sub-section 4 of Sec 20 which has been made retrospective in its operation the deposit made by the tenant would amount to the compliance of the requirements of Section 20 (4)." 7. In view of the above ruling, in the present case, when the defendant petitioner had submitted tender on the first date of hearing he should have got benefit of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioners claim has not been negatived on the ground that he had not submitted tender unconditionally, The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties in this regard centres round question of fact which would be examined by the revisional court. In the present case the judgment of the revisional Court deserves to be quashed in view of the amended provisions of law. 8. In this connection my attention has been drawn to the ruling reported in 1977 U. P. Rent C.C. 227, Daya Ram v. Virendra Kumar Goel wherein another learned single Judge of this Court has held that the tenant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, if he had submitted tender on the relevant date to deposit the money even after 3 days in the circumstances of that case. In the present case the tender was submitted on 11-9-1975 and the money was deposited next day, i. e. on 12-9-1975, hence I think that the defendant-petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the provisions 'of Section 20 (4) as stands today. 9. In the present case the tender was submitted on 11-9-1975 and the money was deposited next day, i. e. on 12-9-1975, hence I think that the defendant-petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the provisions 'of Section 20 (4) as stands today. 9. As regards the petitioners contention that the rent was wrongly enhanced as no notice was served upon the defendant petitioner, I think it proper to leave this question open to be redetermined by the revisional court when the case goes back to it. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 17-9-1976, Annexure "2" is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to redetermine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observation made above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.