CHAMEL SINGH Vs. RAMAN RAJWANSI

JUDGEMENT

(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. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.

(2.) In order to settle the controversy involved in the present Civil Revision, it will be worthwhile to reproduce Sec. 20(4) of the Act herein below for convenience:

(3.) 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'. Sec. 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.