UNIVERSITY BOOK DEPOT Vs. AMIT MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (herein after referred as Act, 1887) by the tenant challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2008 passed by the SCC Court in SCC Suit no. 2 of 2006.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that a suit was filed by the respondent landlord before the SCC Court bearing no. 2 of 2006 for arrears of rent, damages and eviction after determining the tenancy. The suit in question was decreed ex-parte on 18.08.2006. The revisionist herein who was the defendant in the suit filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree on 04.09.2006 which was registered as Miscellaneous Case no. 12 of 2006. On 30.11.2006 an application bearing no. 16(g) was filed for passing the tender for deposit of Rs. 15,775/- which was the decretal amount as per ex-parte decree dated 18.08.2006, under Section 17 of the Act, 1887 which requires the deposit of such amount. The said application was allowed on 08.12.2006 by the Court with the observation that deposit may be made by the applicant tenant at his own risk. Accordingly, on the said date itself the aforesaid deposit was made. Subsequently on 06.10.2007 another application bearing no. 29(g) was filed and was allowed for depositing additional amount of Rs. 3570/- under Section 17 of the Act, 1887. The application under Order IX Rule 13 was allowed by the SCC Court on 13.11.2007 and the ex-parte decree dated 18.08.2006 was set aside. After the decree being set aside, the amount deposited under Section 17 of the Act, 1887 was available to the revisionist tenant for being withdrawn but he did not do so and this fact is not in dispute.

(3.) It is not out of place to mention that the aforesaid amount under Section 17 of the Act, 1887 is in the nature of security for the decreetal amount as per the ex-parte decree, meaning thereby, in the event the application under Order IX Rule 13 is rejected then the said deposit can be utilised for satisfying the ex-parte decree. However, if the decree is set aside then there is no question of its satisfaction and the tenant can withdraw the same unless he has filed an application or otherwise requested that that the said amount be treated as a deposit under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (herein after referred as Act, 1972) if the said provision applies, in a given case.