Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 447 (ALL)

Sant Vijay Singh v. Ist A. D. J.

2005-03-09

MUKTESHWAR PRASAD

body2005
MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS is tenants petition arising out of a suit for eviction of the tenants and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. It appears that S. C. C. Suit No. 21 of 1986 was filed by the landlords in the Court of Judge. Small Causes, Azamgarh for eviction of the tenants and for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2850 and damages. The suit was filed with the allegations that defendant No. 3 (Sahab Singh) occupied the disputed shop as a tenant and paid Rs. 80 per mensem as rent. He further paid Rs. 15 as electricity charges. He, however, failed to pay arrears of rent w. e. f. October, 1983. He sublet the shop in question to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (Sant vijay Singh and Dr. Jai Shankar Singh ). The landlords sent a notice-dated 28. 2. 1986 to the defendants, which was served on 1. 3. 1986. They, however, neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the shop in question. ( 2 ) ON 5. 9. 1986, Jai Shankar Singh, one of the defendants, appeared in the Court and moved an application that copy of the plaint was not sent to him alongwith summons. He, therefore, prayed for supplying copy of the plaint and time to file written statement. ( 3 ) ON 21. 10. 1986, all the defendants filed joint written statement and contested the suit mainly on the grounds that rent of the disputed shop was Rs. 10 only. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were not residing as tenants and the shop was never sublet to anybody. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are nephews of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs accepted rent up to August, 1984 and thereafter refused to accept rent. The defendants moved an application for permission to deposit the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the shop due from them together with interest thereon and cost of the suit, etc. They filed lender alongwith the application also and the amount was actually deposited on 12. 2. 1987. ( 4 ) LEARNED Judge, Small Causes held that on 5. 9. 1986 the defendant appeared in the Court and prayed for time for filing written statement and as such 5. 9. 1986 was the first date of hearing of the suit. They filed lender alongwith the application also and the amount was actually deposited on 12. 2. 1987. ( 4 ) LEARNED Judge, Small Causes held that on 5. 9. 1986 the defendant appeared in the Court and prayed for time for filing written statement and as such 5. 9. 1986 was the first date of hearing of the suit. Since the entire amount of rent, etc. as provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act) was not deposited on 5. 9. 1986, the tenants were not entitled to be relieved against their liability for eviction and the suit was decreed with costs. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree passed by J. S. C. C. , a revision was filed by the tenants which was also dismissed on 20. 8. 1990 by the respondent No. 1. The revisional court also confirmed the finding of the trial court and held that 5. 9. 1986 was the date of first hearing of the suit and, in fact, the amount of rent, etc. was deposited on 12. 2. 1987. ( 6 ) I have heard Sri Satyendra Nath Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C. K. Rai, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and perused the record carefully. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the tenants-petitioners has assailed the impugned orders solely on the ground that tenants had deposited the entire amount of rent, damages, etc. on the first date of hearing as required under Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act and both the Courts below committed illegality in decreeing the suit of the landlords. According to him, on 5. 9. 1986, one of the defendants (Jai Shankar Singh) appeared in the Court and moved an application to the effect that copy of the plaint was not enclosed with the summons sent to him by registered post. He, therefore, prayed for supplying copy of the plaint and for time to file written statement. A joint written statement was filed by the defendants on 21. 10. 1986 and on the same day an application for permission to deposit the arrears of rent was also moved. The tender was passed on 6. 2. 1987 and thereafter amount was deposited on 12. 2. 1987. A joint written statement was filed by the defendants on 21. 10. 1986 and on the same day an application for permission to deposit the arrears of rent was also moved. The tender was passed on 6. 2. 1987 and thereafter amount was deposited on 12. 2. 1987. ( 8 ) NO other point has been urged on behalf of the petitioners. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following decisions : (1) Shafiqur Rahman Khan v. 2nd Additional District Judge, Rampur and Ors. , AIR 1983 All 12 . (2) Mam Chand Pal v. Smt Shanti Agarwal, 2002 (2) AWC 1257 (SC) : 2002 (1) ARC 370. (3) Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. Rishi Ram and Ors. , 2002 (3) AWC 2428 (SC) : 2002 (2) ARC 160. (4) Jai Ram v. Ilnd Additional District Judge, Jhansi and Ors. , 2005 (1) AWC 549 : 2004 (2)ARC 565. ( 10 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the landlords-respondents has supported the judgments impugned in this petition and has urged that Courts below rightly decreed the suit and did not allow benefit of the provision of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. He has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sia Ram v. District Judge, Kheri and Ors. , 1984 (1)ARC 410. ( 11 ) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the entire material on record. Admittedly, the written statement was filed by the defendants on 21. 10. 1986 and on the same day the defendants sought permission of the Court to deposit the arrears, of rent, etc. and enclosed the tender also. However tender was passed by the Court in the month of february, 1987 and thereafter rent was deposited on 12. 2. 1987. The parties have not filed copy of the order sheet. Now it is well settled by various decisions of this Court as well as decisions of the Supreme Court of India also that it is the date on which the Court proposes to apply its mind to the facts and controversy involved in the case. Any date prior to such a date would not be date of first hearing. Now it is well settled by various decisions of this Court as well as decisions of the Supreme Court of India also that it is the date on which the Court proposes to apply its mind to the facts and controversy involved in the case. Any date prior to such a date would not be date of first hearing. It has also been held that if the amount is deposited before the date of first hearing, it would amount to compliance with the relevant provision of the Act. In the instant case on the date of filing of written statement itself the tenants sought permission of the Court to deposit the amount and annexed tender also which was not passed by the Court before February, 1987. Therefore, in my opinion, there was full compliance of the provisions as contained in sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. I, therefore hold that both the Courts below committed illegality in treating 5. 9. 1986 as the date for first hearing of the suit. In my opinion, there was substantial compliance of Section 20 (4) of the Act by the tenants and as such, they are not liable to be evicted from the shop in question. ( 12 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, it is held that petition has merits and it must succeed. The impugned judgment and orders passed on 20. 8. 1990 and 4. 2. 1989 by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively are liable to be quashed. ( 13 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and decrees passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby quashed. The petitioners are not liable to be evicted from the shop in question on account of full compliance of Section 20 (4) of the Act. It is, however, made clear that the entire amount deposited by the petitioners in the Court below shall be withdrawn by the landlords. However, no order is made as to costs. . .