VIMLA DEVI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MIRZAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 3 and 4 are the landlords of an accommodation of which the Petitioners are the tenants. A suit was instituted by Respondents 3 and 4 against the Petitioners for their ejectment on the ground that they were in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months and had not paid it inspite of a notice of demand having been served on them as contemplated by Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the first date of hearing of the suit the Respondents made a deposit of Rs. 250/ - and claimed the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. According to them if this deposit of Rs. 250/ -was taken into account along with the deposit of Rs. 792/ - made by them under Section 7 -C(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act III of 1947) the entire amount which they were required to deposit stood deposited. It does not appear to have been disputed that if the amount of Rs. 792/ - deposited by the Petitioners under Section 7 -C(2) of U.P. Act III of 1947 was added to the sum of Rs. 250/ - deposited by them on the first date of hearing the requirements of Section 20(4) of the Act stood complied with. The benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, however, was denied to the Petitioners by the Judge, Small Causes, on the ground that since the sum of Rs. 792/ - had been deposited by the Petitioners not under Section 7 -C(1) of U.P. Act III of 1947 but under Section 7 -C(2) of the said Act the said amount could not be taken into consideration. In taking this view reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Ear Prasad Garg v. Dharam Deo Nagpal, 1981 ARC 26 where it was held that it was only the amount deposited under Section 30(1) of the Act that could be deducted from the rent due and not the one deposited under Section 30(2) of the Act. The Judge, Small Causes, seems to have been of the view that since the provisions of Section 7 -C(1) and 7 -C(2) of U.P. Act III of 1947 were in pari materia with the provisions of Section 30(1) and Section 30(2) respectively of the Act the principle enunciated in the decision of Har Prasad Garg (Supra) was applicable to a deposit made under Section 7 -C(2) also. The suit was ultimately decreed by the Judge, Small Causes, for ejectment of the Petitioners and for recovery of arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation on 6th April, 1981. A revision filed by the Petitioners was dismissed by the District Judge on 2nd March, 1982. It is these two orders which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) IT has been pointed out by Counsel for the Petitioners that rent had to be deposited by the Petitioners under Section 7 -C(2) of the Act III of 1947 inasmuch as a dispute had arisen in regard to the title of the landlords and that the said dispute was finally resolved by the decision of this Court dated 23rd July, 1979, in Second Appeal No. 3812 of 1978 whereby Ram Chandra predecessor -in -interest of Respondents 3 and 4 was held to be the owner of the disputed accommodation. The necessary facts in this behalf are contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the landlord -Respondents the fact that deposits were made by the Petitioners under Section 7 -C(2) of U.P. Act III of 1947 and also the fact that the dispute between the rival claimants was ultimately decided by judgment of this Court dated 23rd July, 1979, in Second Appeal No. 3812 of 1979 have not been controverted.

(3.) FOR the landlord -Respondents on the other hand it has been urged by their Counsel that on a plain reading of Section 20(4) of the Act it is apparent that only a deposit under Section 30(4) of the Act is capable of being taken into consideration for determining as to whether the requirements of Section 20(4) of the Act had or had not been complied with and that since any deposit under Section 30(2) of the Act could not be taken into consideration for the aforesaid purpose, as a necessary corollary a deposit under Section 7 -C(2) of U.P. Act III of 1947 alone could be taken into consideration and not a deposit under Section 7 -C(2) of U.P. Act III of 1947.