SURAJ BHAN Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.C.Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) Admittedly on the first hearing of the suit petitioners have not deposited entire amount as contemplated in Section 20(4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") but against requisite amount of Rs.8,449.65, the petitioner deposited Rs.8,200/- on 31.8.1982.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that deficit was only marginal i.e. Rs.249.65 which is a petty amount for which petitioner should not have been made to suffer and in this regard placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in Mam Chand Pal Vs. Shanti Agarwal (Smt.), 2002 3 SCC 49.