MELA RAM Vs. ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Atul Dayal, Advocate, for petitioners and Sri Rajesh Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for respondent. This is tenant's writ petition, who has lost in both the Courts below. S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 1999 has been decreed vide judgment dated 18.9.1995 on the ground that tenant failed to deposit the entire amount, as required under section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") on the first date of hearing so as to claim benefit thereunder and, admittedly, he was in default of payment of rent for more than four months, therefore, was liable for ejectment. The aforesaid judgment has been confirmed by Revisional Court dismissing S.C.C. Revision No. 233 of 1994.

(2.) Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel for petitioners, contended that he deposited entire amount on 5.8.1994 when he was allowed permission to file written statement, and, therefore, it cannot be said that any date prior thereto would be the "first date of hearing".

(3.) However, I find no force in the submission. From the order-sheet, it is evident that after service of notice by publication as well as other modes, the date for hearing was fixed on 4.7.1994 when none appeared on behalf of tenant, hence the Court passed an order to proceed ex parte and fixed 2.8.1994 for ex parte hearing. Petitioner put in appearance on 2.8.1994. An application for recall of ex parte order dated 4.7.1994 was filed whereupon Court permitted plaintiff to file objection if any and fixed 19.8.1994 for disposal. Admittedly, on 2.8.1994, which was the date fixed for hearing, on that date also, the petitioner had not deposited the amount of rent etc. as contemplated under section 20(4) of Act, 1972. In my view, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that it was not the "first date of hearing". Reliance placed on Ashok Kumar and others v. Rishi Ram and others, 2002 48 AllLR 401 is misplaced inasmuch the facts of that case are totally different and do not help petitioner in any manner.