VED PRAKASH WADHWA Vs. VISHWA MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point raised in this appeal turns on the question as to when the first hearing of the suit arrives in the course of a case. Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 runs thus:

(2.) In this case the tenant was sought to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent and under the provision above quoted. If he tendered the rent at the first hearing of the suit, the decree for eviction could not be granted on the ground of default in payment of rent. The learned District Judge, however, ordered eviction on the ground that although the Money was tendered before the first hearing, the actual deposit in the Treasury was made later, which was a few days beyond the date of first hearing. There were two other minor contentions turning on Advocate's fee having been calculated at half the sum due and also about interest. The Court took the view that the deposit was made beyond time and directed eviction in allowance of the revision against the decree of the trial Court which had dismissed the suit for eviction. The High Court dismissed the revision against the District Court's order. The appellant has arrived in this Court by special leave.

(3.) We are not disposed to investigate the facts in detail. The question of law raised before us may perhaps be pronounced upon as it is of general importance. S. 20 (4) of., the Act which we have excerpted above fixes the crucial date for deposit of rent as "at the first hearing of the suit," What is "the first hearing of the suit" Certain decisions have been cited before us of the Allahabad High Court which indicate that "the first hearing of the suit" is when, after the framing of issues, the suit is posted for trial, that is, production of evidence. In the matters of State statutes where procedure has to be pronounced upon, the practice of the Court is the best guide to interpretation and the Allahabad High Court having pronounced upon the question we think we ordinarily accept such interpretation unless there is something revoltingly wrong about the construction. We see none here and, therefore, adopt as correct the decision of the High Court regarding the meaning of the expression "at the first hearing of the suit". We may however add that the expression "at the first hearing of the suit" is also to be found in 0. X, R. 1; 0. XIV, R. 1 (5) and 0. XV R. I of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions indicate that "the first hearing of the suit" can never be earlier than the date fixed for the preliminary examination of the parties (0. X, R. 1) and the settlement of issues (0. XIV, R. 1 (5)).