RAM PRASAD Vs. GANGA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Prasad the tenant has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, dated 25th October, 1976 in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1, 2 and 3 are the landlords. They filed a suit for possession over the suit property after ejectment of the tenant Ram Prasad and for recovery of Rs. 24/ - and for pendente lite and future mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 30/ - per month. A notice determining the tenancy was served on the tenant on the 5th January, 1971, and the plea was that the suit could be decreed under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner argued that in the present case the provisions of Section 39 of the Act were applicable and the deposit made by the tenant covered all items and only a small item viz. Counsel's fee had not been deposited at the time when a sum of Rs. 500.51 was deposited in 1972. Subsequently, in 1975 a further amount of Rs. 32.50 was deposited as Counsel's fee. Learned Counsel argued that the amount of Counsel's fee could not be determined, as the Plaintiff had neither filed fee certificate nor had revealed as to how much fee had to be paid. As soon as the legal position was ascertained the amount of Rs. 32.50 was deposited. It was a bonafide mistake and in any event the amount was a trivial one. Learned Counsel cited a decision of a learned Single Judge in case of D.C. Gupta v. K.N. Seth, 1976 ALJ 124, where a deficiency of Rs. 10 was condoned. Learned Counsel further in support of his contention referred to paragraph 20 of a Division Bench decision in the case of Amar Nath Agarwal v. 1st Addl. District Judge : 1982 AWC 786 to show that the principle enunciated by the learned single Judge in the case of D.C. Gupta v. K.N. Seth (supra) had been affirmed by the Division Bench. Learned Counsel argued that when the amount was deposited initially or subsequently in 1975 no objection was raised by the Plaintiff -landlords to any shortfall in the amount or to any impediment in the making of such deposit.