RAMESHWAR PRASAD GUPTA Vs. MADAN MOHAN MEHROTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. K. Mehrotra, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment and order dated 2-11-1987 and 6-7-1990 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Munsif Kheri and First Additional District Judge, Kheri as contained in Annexure Nos. 3 and 2. The opposite party No. 1 was the landlord of the shop in dispute situate at Sadar Chauraha, Main Road, Lakhimpur Kheri and the petitioner has been tenant in the said Shop. On 2-11-1987, the opposite party No. 1 filed SCC Suit No. 11/87 against the petitioner for arrears of rent and eviction after determining the tenancy by serving a notice. The suit was contested by the petitioner, contending therein that the rent upto 31-3- 1987 stood paid up and the rent for the month of April, May, June, 1987 was sent by the Money Order on 23-7-1987 but it was refused by the landlord. The petitioner deposited the rent and other dues for the benefit under Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) after recording the evidence of both the parties the learned Judge, Small Causes decreed the suit and a revision filed against that judgment was dismissed by the Additional District Judge.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned judgment of Judge, Small Causes goes to show that there are findings that the defendant/petitioner has committed default in payment of rent and the defendant/petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act because the entire amount as required under Section 20 (4) of the Act, was not deposited. It was also held that it was the duty of the defendant/petitioner to prove the payment of rent which has not been proved. The learned Judge, Small Causes was of the view that the entire amount of rent due includes the time barred rent also. The Revisional Court dismissed the revision by recording the findings that the learned judge, Small Causes Court rightly found the amount due and since the defendant/petitioner was in arrear of rent for more than 4 months and he did not deposit the rent after the demand notice, he was defaulter.

(3.) FIRST of all, I take the contention whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the provision under Section 20 (4) of the Act, or not. In the instant case, it is admitted that the defendant/petitioner has not deposited the time barred rent. In view of this admitted position, I am of the view that two Courts below have rightly refused the benefit of the provision under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The provision under Section 20 (4) of the Act, is as follows :- "section 20 (4) - In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioning in clause (a) of sub-section (2) if at the first hearing of the suit, the tenant unconditionally pays or (tenders to the landlord or deposits in Court) the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine percent per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of Section 30, the Court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section - (a) the expression 'first hearing' means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant; (b) the expression 'costs of the suit' includes one-half of the amount of Counsel's fee taxable for a contested suit.