LAWS(SC)-2010-10-20

RAM KRISHNA SINGH Vs. THAKURJI SHIVJI

Decided On October 07, 2010
RAM KRISHNA SINGH Appellant
V/S
THAKURJI SHIVJI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, counsel for the appellants and Ms. Swati Sinha, counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) This is a tenants' appeal arising from a suit for eviction and arrears of rent under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act').

(3.) The suit was filed in the year 1975 against the original tenant Kali Prasad, whose heirs and legal representatives are now the appellants before this Court. It was decreed ex-parte on September 25, 1975. When the decree was put to execution, the tenant filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13, on October 7, 1978 for setting aside the ex-parte decree. This petition was dismissed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur. In course of the proceedings before the Small Causes Court, Kali Prasad had died and was substituted by his heirs and legal representatives (the present appellants). They took the matter in revision. The Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, allowed the revision by order dated January 31, 1983 holding that the summons in the suit were actually not served on Kali Prasad and hence, the ex-parte decree was liable to be set aside. Ten days later, on February 10, 1983, the tenants deposited all the arrears of rent in court. Over two and a half years later, on December 13, 1985, the record of the case was received back in the Small Causes Court and the proceedings in the suit were resumed before the Small Causes Court on January 3, 1986. At that stage, a petition was filed on behalf of the respondent-landlord for allowing the suit and directing the eviction of the tenants on the ground that the arrears of rent had not been paid on the first date of hearing. The Small Causes Court did not accept the petition and proceeded with the suit. Finally, on February 19, 1988 it decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent but dismissed it in regard to the relief for eviction holding that the tenants were entitled to the protection under Section 20(4) of the Act.