SUBHASH CHAND Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffarnagar in SCC Revision No. 22 of 2000. The revision was directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2000, passed by JSCC, Kairana, district Muzaffarnagar in SCC Suit No. 23 of 1997. The suit was decreed and revision was dismissed on the ground that amount deposited by petitioner under section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred as Act) was short by Rs. 150/ -.

(2.) COPY of order sheet is Annexure 4 of the writ petition. The suit was filed on 11.9.1997 and on 25.10.1997 an amount of Rs. 48,500/ - was deposited by the tenant. On 28.10.1997 the case was adjourned on the application of learned counsel for the defendant and 27.11.1997 was fixed for WS/FD (final disposal). On 27.11.1997 defendant moved an application that he had deposited entire rent etc. hence the suit was not maintainable and the said application was directed to be put on 19.12.1997. Thereafter on 19.12.1997 plaintiff sought permission for filing Replica. The case was filed for hearing on 6.3.1998. On 6.3.1998 tenant deposited Rs. 150/ -. According to the learned counsel for the respondent landlord 27.11.1997 was the for first hearing as defined under section 20(4) and on that date deposited amount was short by Rs. 150/ - hence tenant petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of section 20 sub -section (4) of the Act.

(3.) IN my opinion, firstly 27.11.1997 was not the date fixed exclusively for hearing as by order dated 28.10.1997, it was directed that the next date should be 27.11.1997 for WS/FD. On 27.11.1997 application was moved by defendant and the case was not taken up for hearing. On the said application moved by the defendant time was granted to the plaintiff to file reply and the Court did not apply its mind, hence in my opinion 27.11.1997 could not be the date of first hearing. I am also of the opinion that short fall of Rs. 150/ - in comparison to Rs. 48,500/ - is trivial and benefit of section 20(4) of the Act can not be denied on the ground of such negligible short fall.