LAKSHMI NARAIN SHARMA Vs. ARJUN DEO DHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) THE petitioner is the tenant of an accommodation of which respondent no. 1 is the landlord. A suit was instituted by respondent no. 1 for the ejectment of the petitioner from the said accommodation as also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages on 27th July, 1972 on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for more than four months and had failed to pay the same within one month from the date of service of notice of demand upon him as contemplated by section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (herein-after referred to as the Act). THE petitioner contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the arrears of rent in respect of which the respondent no. 1 had served upon him a notice of demand had already been paid to the Munim of the said respondent and that consequently the petitioner was not a defaulter in the payment of rent within the meaning of section 20 (2) (a) of the Act. A dispute was raised in regard to certain other items also, for instance, Bhumi Bhawan Kar etc. which respondent no. 1 claimed to be entitled. After several adjournments on one ground or the other 1st July, 1973 was the date fixed for hearing before the Judge Small Causes, respondent no. 2. On that date the petitioner made an application for adjournment which was allowed and 4th September, 1973 was the date fixed for hearing. On that date, the case could not be taken up and 12th November, 1973 was fixed for hearing. It appears that on 4th September, 1973 the petitioner tendered certain amount in court as a deposit under section 20 (4) of the Act and that amount was deposited on some future date thereafter. On 12th November, 1973, the defence of the petitioner was struck off for non-compliance of the requirements of Order XV rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and after taking evidence of respondent no. 1 the suit was decreed. That decree was, however, set aside in revision by the Distt. Judge and the case came up for hearing before the Judge Small Causes again on 13th February 1979. On that date, the suit was decreed. THE benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act claimed by the petitioner in view of the deposit made by him as aforesaid was refused on two grounds. Firstly the petitioner had challenged the title of the landlord by asserting that he was the owner of only 1/5th share and secondly that the deposit made under section 20 (4) of the Act was under protest and not unconditional. Against that order a revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Distt. Judge which had been dismissed by respondent no. 3 the IV Addl. Distt. Judge, Agra on 16th September 1980. Respondent no. 3 has upheld the finding of the Judge Small Causes that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act inasmuch as the deposit made by him was not unconditional as contemplated by the said sub section. It is these two orders which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(3.) AS is apparent on the plain language of sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act it contemplates payment, tender of deposit not only of the amount of rent due but also damages for use and occupation of the building calculated at the same rate as rent and payable up to the date on which the deposit under the said subsection is made. The petitioner at no point of time seems to have disputed his liability to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 8/-p.m. which was the admitted rate of rent, from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of the deposit under section 20 (4) of the Act. Consequently, the said amount was admittedly due from him. He no doubt deposited this amount but attached a condition even in regard to this amount that the same may be kept in deposit meaning thereby that the same may not be paid to the landlord respondent no. 1 till the suit was finally decided. The deposit even of the admitted amount of damages as such was not made by the petitioner unconditionally even though it was due from him. Further even in regard to the arrears of rent claimed by the landlord in the notice of demand, the finding recorded by the authorities below is that the petitioner had failed to substantiate his defence that he had paid the said amount to the Munim of the respondent no. 1. The pre-condition attached by the petitioner that the said amount may be kept in deposit till the suit was decided was, therefore, even in regard to this amount not justified. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the respondents 2 and 3 cannot be said to have committed either any manifest error of law or error of jurisdiction in taking the view that the deposit made by the petitioner had not been made unconditionally as contemplated by Section 20 (4) of the Act and that he was consequently not entitled to the benefit of the said sub-section in the matter of passing a decree for eviction against him.