SUDERSHAN DEVI Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants and the 2nd respondent are the legal representatives of the original tenant. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 1st February, 1994, dismissing the appellants' writ petition bearing Civil Miscellaneous W. P. No. Nil of 1994, (Smt. Sudershan Malhotra and others v. Addl. District Judge, Hardwar). The 1st respondent is the landlady. The eviction case registered as Small Cause Case No. 6 of 1989 was filed by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13/72) (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the tenant. It was decreed by the trial Court on 27-3-1993 on the ground that the arrears of rent were not deposited on due date under Section 20(4). Subsequently, the Small Causes Revision No. 12 of 1993 filed by the appellants was dismissed on 25-1-1994 by the revisional Court. Later, the High Court dismissed the appellants' writ petition. Thus, the decree for eviction was passed by the Courts under Section 20(4) of the Act on the ground of non-deposit of the arrears of rent at the "the first hearing" of the case in the trial Court. The tenant's legal representatives have come up in appeal.

(2.) The following are the relevant facts: Late Sharvan Kumar Malhotra was the tenant of the 1st respondent in respect of D. No. 26/4, Civil Lines Hardwar Road, Roorkee, District Hardwar (U.P.) from 1977 upon a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- (allegedly inclusive of house tax and water tax). On the ground of default in payment of rent for 33 months from 2-6-1986 to 28-2-1989, the 1st respondent sent a notice dated 10-3-1989 to the tenant which notice was received by the tenant on or about 28-3-1989. The tenant sent a reply on 28-3-1989. The first respondent-landlady filed the present suit for eviction in 1989. The trial Court found that the rent was due for more than four months, that the tenant was liable only to pay rent of Rs. 70/- and not the house tax or water tax, that there was default in payment of rent for 33 months as contended by the first respondent, that the arrears of rent were not deposited at the 'first hearing' of the suit but were deposited long thereafter on 6-2-1992. The suit was therefore decreed for eviction under Section 20(4) of the Act and for arrears in a sum of Rs. 2310/-. The trial Court found, in that connection, that the 'first hearing' was on 22-2-90 as per the 'substituted service' taken out by the first respondent. On 22-2-90, the tenant did not deposit the rents and hence the tenant was liable to be evicted. This view was affirmed by the District Court and by the High Court, as stated earlier.

(3.) Inasmuch as there was considerable debate before us as to whether the words "at the first hearing" meant the date to which the matter was listed for "first hearing" (as contended by the landlord-respondent) i.e. final hearing as this was a Small Cause suit, or whether it would be the date when the first hearing actually took place (as contended by the appellants-tenants), - it would be necessary to refer to the various events which took place after the suit for eviction was filed, in some detail.