GOPAL DAS Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 are the landlords of an accommodation of which the petitioner is the tenant. A suit was instituted by respondents 2 and 3 for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he was in arrears of rent for more than period of four months and had not paid the same notwithstanding a notice of demand having been served on him and consequently he was liable to be evicted from the accommodation in question in view of section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act XIII 1972). The petitioner contested the suit. He also claimed immunity from ejectment on the ground that he had deposited on the first date of hearing the entire amount contemplated by Section 20 (4) of the Act. The Judge, Small Causes, found that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 1-9-75 as alleged by respondents 2 and 3. He also found that the amount deposited by the petitioner on the first date of hearing was not the entire amount contemplated by Section 20 (4) of the Act and was deficient by Rs. 95/-. However, taking the view that the requirements of Section 20 (3) of the Act had been substantially complied with the Judge, Small Causes, relieved the petitioner of the liability for ejectment and required him to deposit the deficient sum of Rs. 95/- within seven days. On a revision filed by respondents 2 and 3 the order of the Judge, Small Causes, has been set aside by respondent no. 1 on the ground that the entire amount contemplated by Section 20 (4) of the Act having admittedly not being deposited by the petitioner the benefit of that section was not available to him and the Judge, Small Causes, had no jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the required amount. It is this order which is sought to be quashed in this writ petition.

(2.) IT has been urged by counsel for the petitioner that Section 20 (4) of the Act was in pari materia with Section 39 of the Act and since in D. C. Gupta v. K. N. Seth, 1976 ALJ 124 it was held that benefit of Section 39 of the Act could be given to a tenant who had made substantial compliance of its requirements the view taken by the Judge, Small Causes, was correct and respondent no. 1 has committed a manifest error of law in taking a contrary view. IT was also urged that Section 20 (4) was enacted for the benefit of the tenant and in case of any doubt in the matter of its interpretation on the doubt should be resolved in favour of the tenant as was the rule of interpretation of a beneficient piece of legislation. Reliance was also placed on Bimal Chord Jain v. Sri Gopal Agrawal 1981 AWC 529 where it has been held by the Supreme Court that if there was material on record justifying extention of time for making the necessary deposit under Order XV Rule 5 CPC the court had discretion to extend the time and was not bound to strike off the defence.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the parties I am of opinion that on the facts of the instant case it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether there is any conflict in the decision in D. C. Gupta's ease relied on by counsel for the petitioner on the one hand and the decisions relied on by counsel for respondents 2 and 3 on the other and if so its effect. The reason for taking this view is that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed even if the observation made in D. C. Gupta's case supra on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner, which as would presently be shown was really in the nature of obiter dicta, is applied to the facts of the instant case. In D. C. Gupta's case the Civil Judge had taken the view that since the tenant had not deposited Rs. 100/- towards the cost of the suit representing counsel's fee and Rs.10/- odd towards interest he was not entitled to the benefit of section 39 of the Act. The learned Judge who decided D. C. Gupta's case agreed with the Civil Judge that since Rs.100/- counsel's fee had not been deposited by the tenant he was not entitled to the benefit of section 39 of the Act. While dealing with the argument whether the sum of Rs. 10/- odd towards interest not deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing could be permitted to be made good after the expiry of the statutory period he observed :