RAMESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of the shop in dispute. He is aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Causes (Munsiff), Jhansi, dated 22.9.1990 which was affirmed by the District Judge, Jhansi vide his judgment dated 11.2.1991 in revision.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner. The said suit was registered as 137 of 1985. Respondent No. 3's allegation was that the petitioner did not pay rent despite demand, with effect from 6.2.1978 to 5.5.19(sic)5, and he did not pay water-tax amounting to Rs. 860/-. A notice is said to have been sent to the petitioner demanding the rent and determining his tenancy. However, there was a dispute about the amount of rent which was payable and the amount of water-tax which was due from the petitioner. The Courts below have held that the petitioner did not deposit the rent on the date of 1st hearing of the suit therefore, he was liable to be ejected from the property in question. However, on revision, the claim of the landlord with regard to the recovery of Rs. 536 towards water-tax was dismissed.

(3.) IT has been held in Subhash Chandra Jain v. 1st Additional District Judge and others, 1982(2) ARC 319 that 'first hearing of the suit will be the date when the Court applies its mind to the lis'. In Smt. Ram Shree Devi v. Liyaqat Hussain, 1981 ARC 683, it has been held that when Court fixed a date for hearing, that will be the date of first hearing. On the date mentioned in summon defendant was not served. It was extended and on extended date the Presiding Officer was absent and on dates fixed thereafter, the Court adjourned the case on one ground or another. Finally two dates were fixed one for filing written statement and other for hearing, date of hearing was held to be date of 1st hearing. The defence could not be struck out for non-payment of rent because the date of first hearing was taken to be when the Court had fixed the date of hearing. In Transtel Electronics Ltd. v. S.N. Gundu Rao, 1983(1) ARC 395, the tenant had claimed protection under Section 20(a) of the Act of 1972 because the Court had failed to consider that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for more than four months and had failed to pay the rent in spite of demand. In Ravindra Kumar Chopra v. The 3rd Additional District Judge and others, 1984(1) ARC 387, it was held that while determining the date of first hearing it was necessary for the Court to examine as to whether summons was accompanied with copy of plaint. It is necessary that summons should be accompanied with copy of the plaint under Order 5, Rule 2, CPC. If there is no copy of the plaint with summons and the defendant appears in pursuance of the summons, his appearance will not be deemed as date of first hearing.