Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 154 (ALL)

U. P. CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. v. RAMESHWAR HAVELIA

2001-02-16

I.M.QUDDUSI

body2001
I. M. QUDDUSI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act against the order dated 12. 9. 1994 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court (14th Additional district Judge) in Small Causes Suit Wo. 29 of 1991. Rameshwar Havelia v. U. P. Cooperative bank Ltd. , by means of which the learned court below passed order on the application of the revisionist (Application No. Ga 14) for providing benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (U. P. Act. No. 13 of 1972) to the effect that the application shall be decided along with final decision of the case and allowing application (Ga 76) of the opposite party by which the opposite party has raised objection to the effect that the revisionist is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, on the ground that he has not deposited the entire amount, as also the water and house tax, and the deposits which was made under Section 30 were not made within the jurisdiction of munsif (North) but was made in the Court of Munsif (South) who had no Jurisdiction to allow the benefits and as such the matter be disposed of with the final decision. ( 2 ) AT the very outset, the provisions of Sections 20 (2) (a) and 20 (4) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 are liable to be perused which re-quoted as under: "20 (2 ). ( 2 ) AT the very outset, the provisions of Sections 20 (2) (a) and 20 (4) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 are liable to be perused which re-quoted as under: "20 (2 ). A suit for eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely : (a) that the tenant Is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand : provided that in relation to a tenant who is a member of the armed forces of the Union and in whose favour the Prescribed Authority under the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 (Act No. IV of 1925) has issued a certificate that he is serving under special condition within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act or where he has died by enemy action while so serving, then in relation to his heirs, the words "four months" in this clause shall be deemed to have been substituted by the words "one year". 20 (4 ). 20 (4 ). 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 9 per cent per annum and the landlords costs of the suit in respect thereof after deduction therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of Section 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 : provided that nothing in this sub-section, shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, a residential building in the same city/municipality, Notified Area or Town Area, explanation-- For the purpose of this sub-section : (a) the expression "first hearing" means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant ; (b) the expression "cost of the suit" Includes one half of the amount of the counsels fee taxable for a contested suit. " ( 3 ) THUS, the above provisions show that there are conditions to tender the amount by the tenant. These conditions are ; the amount should be tendered at the first hearing of the suit, it should be unconditioned, the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from the tenant. 9 per cent interest thereon be paid in addition and costs of the suit. But the tenant on depositing the said amount may deduct the amount deposited under Section 30. If the tenant fulfils these conditions, the Court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground mentioned In Section 29 (2) (a), as quoted above, relieve the tenant from his liability for eviction. ( 4 ) IN the instant matter, there is no dispute regarding first hearing. If the tenant fulfils these conditions, the Court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground mentioned In Section 29 (2) (a), as quoted above, relieve the tenant from his liability for eviction. ( 4 ) IN the instant matter, there is no dispute regarding first hearing. The dispute is only with regard to the total amount which was liable to be deposited, the fact whether the amount has been deposited unconditionally or with condition or whether the amount deposited under Section 30 in the Court of Munsif (South) is liable to be admissible for the purpose of this section or not. ( 5 ) THE court below could decide the objections of the opposite party in that regard and in case, in the opinion of the Court, the tenant has not complied with the requirements provided in Section 20 (4), he could have passed order in that regard and further proceeded with the case. The words "relieving tenant against his liability" means that in case the tenant complies with the conditions mentioned in Section 20 (4) above, the tenant may be relieved from his liability for eviction and if the tenant complies with the conditions, the Court may also save its valuable time in proceeding further and decide the whole case. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, this Court is of the view that in case the Court below finds that the requirement of section 20 (4) have been fulfilled and the revisionist is liable to be relieved from the liability for eviction. It will be a futile exercise and wastage of time and energy which could be utilized in the decision of other cases. But in case the Court finds that the conditions of Section 20 (4) have not been complied with by the revisionist, then he may pass orders in that regard and the Chapter of relieving the liability of revisionist for eviction will come to an end and the Court will be able to proceed further in accordance with law. ( 7 ) IN these circumstances, the Court should take up the matter of, Section 20 (4) first and take a decision and only then he should proceed further, if necessary. This Court is conscious that there may be some circumstances in which the Court may not be in a position to decide the application without recording evidence of the parties. This Court is conscious that there may be some circumstances in which the Court may not be in a position to decide the application without recording evidence of the parties. In such circumstances, the Court may order that recording of evidence before taking decision on the application is necessary ; therefore, the application can only be decided at the lime of final decision. ( 8 ) BUT in the instant matter, the learned court below has not observed that recording of evidence is necessary for making decision on the application, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the learned court below should have decided the application under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, moved by the tenant (revisionist) first before proceeding further on merits. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on a case law of Vasudeo chaturvedi v. Seventh Additional District Judge and others, ALR 1988 (14) 678, in which it has been held that whether benefits under aforesaid sub-section would be available to the tenant is dependent upon the facts and the appropriate stage for deciding this question is at the time of final hearing. ( 10 ) IN this regard, it is a matter of worth consideration that in the statute Itself, the word "first hearing" has been defined, which means the first date for any step or proceedings mentioned in the summons served on the defendant. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, the intention of the Legislature for the purposes of this Act is that every date fixed by the Court is the date of hearing. Every date as defined, is the date of first hearing. Therefore, when every date fixed by the Court is the date of hearing, then it cannot be said that there is bar for the Court to decide the case or pass a decree on the date of hearing in view of Explanation (a)of Section 20 (4) of the Act. Therefore, in case the Court decides the case and passes a decree at the earliest would be better than keeping the case pending and fixing dates for hearing again and again, while he is capable of deciding the application under Section 20 (4) on the date of hearing and passes decree which may save the valuable time of the Court. Therefore, in case the Court decides the case and passes a decree at the earliest would be better than keeping the case pending and fixing dates for hearing again and again, while he is capable of deciding the application under Section 20 (4) on the date of hearing and passes decree which may save the valuable time of the Court. ( 12 ) IN view of the discussions made above, the order passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, dated 12. 9. 1994 in J. S. C. C. Suit No. 29 of 1991, Rameshwar Havelia v. U. P. Cooperative Bank ltd. is set aside. The learned court below is directed to decide application (Ga-14) first and in case he comes to the conclusion that the revisionist has not complied with the conditions mentioned in Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, he may pass orders in that regard and may proceed further in accordance with law. But in case he finds that the revisionist has complied with the requirements/conditions mentioned in that section, he may pass orders relieving the revisionist from his liability for eviction. ( 13 ) THE revision is allowed to the above extent without any order as to costs. .