SIA RAM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KHERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition arising out of a suit for. rent and ejectment filed by the landlords opposite-parties 3 and 4. The suit was filed in December 1977 in the court of Small Causes. Arrears of rent were claimed for the period from November 1S75 to August 1977. The building was governed by the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Eviction was claimed on the ground of default under section 20 (2) (a) of that Act. The date of hearing mentioned in the summons issued to the defendant-petitioner was 6-1-78. On that date he moved for adjournment on the ground that his counsel had gone out. The case was adjourned to 10-2-78. On that date the defendant-petitioner made an application for permission to deposit the arrears of rent along with costs etc. in accordance with . section 20 (4) of the Act. He was allowed to deposit the amount at his own risk ; in other words, the question whether the deposit would be deemed sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 20 (4) was left open. THIS, question was the subject-matter of issue no. 2 framed in the case. The trial court held that in view of the Explanation (a) appended to section 20 (4) the first hearing was 6-1-78, the date mentioned in the summons, and inasmuch as the sum required to be deposited had not been deposited on that date, the defendant was not entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4). The defendant having been found a defaulter, a decree for eviction was passed against him. . The District Judge in a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act agreed with the trial court and dismissed the revision. Thereupon the petitioner came to this court.

(2.) THE learned single Judge before whom the petition came up for disposal was confronted with conflicting views expressed ' in Gaya Prasad v. Pramod Kumar Shukla, 1980 LLJ 56 and Jagannath v. Ram Chander Srivastava, 1982 AWC 623, and accordingly, referred the whole case to a larger Bench. It is thus that this case has came up before us.

(3.) SECTION 20 (4) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, on the other hand provided that in any suit for eviction on the ground of default in arrears of payment mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20, if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him together with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit in respect thereof, 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. This was subject to an exception mentioned in the proviso to that sub-section, with which we are not concerned in the instant case.