SUDAMA PRASAD Vs. GOPAL DHARMSHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This is tenant petitioner's review application. Suit for eviction filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 landlords against tenant-petitioner for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent had been decreed by both the courts below (Judge Small Causes Court, Jhansi and Additional District Judge Court No. 4, Jhansi) on the ground of default (even though landlords had pleaded that the U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction Act 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute however, this point was decided in favour of the tenant by the courts below and it was held that the Act was applicable). Number of the suit was SCC suit No. 69 of 1995 and it was decreed on 12.10.2000. Number of the revision was SCC revision No. 110/2000 and it was dismissed on 2.8.2007. Writ petition was dismissed by me on 31.8.2007. Regarding benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act which provides that if on the first date of hearing entire rent due till then alongwith interest and cost of the suit is deposited by the tenant then decree for eviction may not be passed I held in my judgment under review that deposit made by the tenant was short 3rd paragraph of the judgment is quoted below:

(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties I am satisfied that the above factual finding is not correct and is not in accordance with the material on record. Learned Counsel for the landlords has also admitted this position. True copy of the plaint is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is alleged in the plaint that rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 300/- per month had not been paid since 24.7.1993 till 15.3.1995 (plaint was filed in March 1995). For the period after the notice dated 21.4.1994 till the filing of the suit damages were claimed at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month. During argument on the review petition, learned Counsel for the landlords admitted that the amount which was deposited on 18.10.1995 by the tenant was complete under Section 20(4) of the Act. From the details of the deposit given in the review application which are not denied it is clear that 21.10.1995 was the date of first hearing and one day prior to that i.e. on 20.10.1995 tenant-petitioner had deposited Rs. 13,095/-. Apart from it an amount of Rs. 630/- had already been deposited under Section 30 of the Act. In this manner total deposited amount was Rs. 13,725/-. However, the requirement to deposit was only of Rs. 11,314.50, (it includes Rs. 8,100/- as rent for 27 months (24.7.93 to 21.10.1995) at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and Rs. 850/- as interest and Rs. 2364.50 as cost). As Annexure-1 to the review petition, copy of an application filed by the petitioner before the trial court on 18.10.1995 has been annexed seeking permission to deposit the amount.