Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 32 (UTT)

Shri Ram v. Ramrik Singh

2018-01-11

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. In these three writ petitions, which arise out of the concurrent judgments dated 29.03.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD), Haridwar as Judge, Small Causes Court, and by the learned Revisional Court i.e. District Judge, Haridwar, while dealing with revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, wherein both the Courts below have declined to grant the benefit of sub Section (4) of Section 20 to the petitioners in the proceedings for eviction drawn by respondent landlord exclusively only on the ground of default in remittance of rent, who are the tenants of the respective tenements in these three writ petitions. 2. It is not in dispute rather admitted by respondent that the petitioners/tenants had deposited the entire rent by invoking Section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No. 99 of 1986. 3. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that in compliance of sub Section (4) of Section 20, the petitioners/tenants had deposited the entire amount payable under Section 20(4) on the first date of hearing. Further, it is not in dispute with regard to the quantification of the amount, which the petitioners/tenants have deposited as it is not disputed at this stage and total amount payable was deposited. But both the Courts below have declined to grant the benefit to the petitioners on the ground that since in accordance with the pleadings raised in the written statement, they had rather questioned the devolvement of the title of landlord-ship on the respondents by virtue of the Will, said to have been executed in their favour. This itself will amount to be conditional deposit, hence there was not a complete compliance of under Section 20(4) and deposit admittedly made will not be treated to be in the spirit of deposit provided under Section 20(4) hence no benefit could be extended to the petitioner. 4. This aspect and stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant is that it has to be treated as to be a conditional deposit. In response to it, during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon a pronouncement which has been rendered by this Court as reported in 2005 (2) U.D., 406 in “Harish Lal Sah Vs. The District Judge, Almora and another” in its para No. 7 held as under:- “7. In response to it, during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon a pronouncement which has been rendered by this Court as reported in 2005 (2) U.D., 406 in “Harish Lal Sah Vs. The District Judge, Almora and another” in its para No. 7 held as under:- “7. On the point of protection from ejectment under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, in Ghoorey Lal Vs. Sheo Moorti Gupta; 1995(2) Allahabad Rent Case Pg.4, it has been held that where the tenant even if makes deposit of the rent but denies the title of landlord, being the deposit not unconditional, the tenant is not entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of said Act. In the present case, assuming for a moment that he defendant deposited the rent but since he has denied the title of the landlord he cannot be said to be entitled to the protection provided under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of aforesaid Act.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that it has been held that where a tenant makes the deposit and denying the title, it will tantamount to be a conditional deposit and will disentitled him for protection of sub Section (4) of Section 20 of the Act No. 13 of 1972. 6. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the finding recorded by the Judge, Small Causes in its para No. 17 in Civil Case No. 11 of 2013 as passed on 12.10.2017 as under:- “17. fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk ,d vU; uthj%& & AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1264 Sheela Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash izLrqr dh x;h ftlesa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k fd Tenant bonafide calling upon landlord to prove his ownership or putting landlord to proof of his title – Tenant, however, not disowning his character and nature of possession over suit premises as tenant – The tenant cannot be said to have denied title or disclaimed tenancy – Not liable to be evicted under Section 12(1)(c).” 7. The impugned judgment wherein before the Court below the reliance was placed on a judgment as reported in AIR (2002) SC 1264 in “Sheela and others Vs. The impugned judgment wherein before the Court below the reliance was placed on a judgment as reported in AIR (2002) SC 1264 in “Sheela and others Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash”, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when the tenant bonafidely calls upon the landlord to prove his ownership and to prove his title, however disowning his character and the nature of his possession the tenant cannot be said to have denied the title of the tenancy. At this stage when the case is being argued at admission stage, prima facie in accordance to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he does not disown his status to be that of a tenant, what he wants to argue is that for the purposes of maintaining the proceedings landlord was called upon to establish his ownership which he acclaims to have fallen on his on the basis of will. 8. This Court, at this stage feels that once the fact to adequate deposit of the amount claimed is not in dispute rather tenant while depositing under Section 20(4) has also deposit under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972, admittedly applicable in the instant case and only interpretation which is required to be done by this Court on a very short controversy as to whether looking to the pleading raised by the rival parties, the amount deposited with the Court below on its first date of hearing would be treated as to be conditional deposit or not, it has to be resolved by this Court. 9. In that view of the matter as the controversy in given set of present case is debatable, and as prayed for by the learned counsel for the respondent, he may file his counter affidavit by 14.02.2018 and the petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit positively by 20.02.2018. 10. Put up this matter on 22.02.2018. Till the next date of hearing, the eviction of the petitioner from tenement in question shall remain stayed. 11. Let a copy of the order be placed in both the WPMS No. 115 of 2018 and WPMS No. 122 of 2018 respectively.