Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 449 (UTT)

CHAMEL SINGH v. RAMAN RAJWANSI

2015-09-14

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. Present Civil Revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 20.05.2015 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Dehradun in S.C.C. Suit No.54 of 2011, titled as Raman Rajwansi vs. Chamel Singh, whereby the application (paper no.96C) filed by the defendant (revisionist herein) was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable. 2. An application (paper no.96C) was moved by the defendant-revisionist before the court below with the prayer that since he (i.e. defendant) has paid the entire amount of rent and damages for the use and occupation of the property in question to the landlord in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), therefore, the S.C.C. suit be decided in terms thereof. Learned 1st Additional District Judge, Dehradun, vide order dated 20.05.2015, observed that the question, i.e., whether the defendant is entitled to get the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, would be seen at the time of ‘final hearing’ of the case and consequently, the application filed by the defendant was held to be ‘not maintainable’ at that stage and was accordingly dismissed. It was also observed that since the proceeding in S.C.C. suit are summary proceedings, therefore, it was not necessary for the court below to have gone into the matter. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision has been preferred by the revisionist-defendant. 3. In order to settle the controversy involved in the present Civil Revision, it will be worthwhile to reproduce Section 20 (4) of the Act hereinbelow for convenience: “20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds. – (1) …………………………. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision has been preferred by the revisionist-defendant. 3. In order to settle the controversy involved in the present Civil Revision, it will be worthwhile to reproduce Section 20 (4) of the Act hereinbelow for convenience: “20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds. – (1) …………………………. (2) ………………………… (3) ………………………… (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 nine per cent per annum and the landlord’s costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting 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, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area.” Explanation. – For the purposes 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 counsel’s fee taxable for a contested suit.” 4. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that if the tenant has deposited entire rent as claimed by the landlord on the ‘first date of hearing’, then in that circumstance, 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. By using the word ‘order’, it is intended that the application made thereunder shall be decided forthwith, instead of postponing its hearing at the stage of ‘final hearing’. By using the word ‘order’, it is intended that the application made thereunder shall be decided forthwith, instead of postponing its hearing at the stage of ‘final hearing’. Section 20(4) of the Act is not enacted only for the purpose of recovering the rent due on the first date of hearing, but the intention of the legislature is to protect the tenant from eviction. The court below has, therefore acted his jurisdiction illegally with material irregularity. 5. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application (paper no.96C) filed by the defendant was maintainable. 6. As a consequence thereof, the civil revision is allowed. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside with a direction to the court below to decide the application (paper no. 96C) filed by the defendant-revisionist in the light of the provision of Section 20 (4) of the Act, after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law.