SHRI KRISHNA Vs. IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 45 of 1983 on the file of J.S.C.C., Kannauj at Sarai Meera, district Farrukhabad instituted by landlord respondent No. 2 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default and recovery of arrears of rent. Property in dispute is a shop and the rate of rent is Rs. 40/ - per month. Suit was instituted after terminating the tenancy and demanding the rent from November, 1982 through notice dated 27.8.1983. Tenant petitioner filed written statement stating therein that on 25.11.1983 he had unconditionally deposited the entire arrears of rent alongwith cost and interest, hence he was entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In the plaint it was also mentioned that defendant had damaged the floor of the shop in dispute. Trial Court held that no damage had been caused by the defendant in the shop in dispute. The tenant after making the initial deposit on 25.11.1983 had deposited the subsequent rent also. In the suit plaintiff argued that the rent of April and May was deposited on 8.5.1984, hence it was not within time. The Trial Court observed that there was no dispute that initial deposit was properly made. There was only one day's delay in depositing the rent of March 1984, hence there was no question of striking off the defence of the tenant. Trial Court, therefore did not strike off the defence. Ultimately by judgment and decree dated 17.4.1984 Trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction and permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant. Against the said judgment and decree landlord respondent No. 2 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 39 of 1984. IV A.D.J. Farrukhabad allowed the revision on 11.4.1988, set aside the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and decreed the suit for eviction also hence this writ petition by the tenant. In this Writ Petition on 30.4.2005 arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard and judgment was reserved. No one appeared on behalf of the landlord respondents to argue the writ petition.

(2.) THE Revision Court took a strange view. It held that until 12.7.1984 when tenant filed documents of deposit he did not inform the Trial Court that he had deposited the entire rent, hence written statement should not have been accepted by the Trial Court thereafter. (Written statement was actually filed on 4.1.1984). Tine fact that rent had been deposited on 25.11.1983 was not disputed by the landlord. When amount is deposited through tender, it is done after getting the tender passed by the Court, hence regarding deposit information is already available on the file. Even otherwise under section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the requirement is of depositing the amount on the first date of hearing and not of information thereof to the Court. Even if it is assumed that the Trial Court was informed about the deposit later on still benefit of section 20(4) of the Act could not be denied as deposit had been made on the first date of hearing. The entire emphasis of Revisional Court is on late information of the tenant to the Court regarding deposit. The Revisional Court also wrongly held that written statement should not have been accepted on 4.1.1984 as defence of tenant stood struck off prior to the said date. No order of striking off the defence of tenant was passed by Trial Court. Under Order 15, Rule 5, C.P.C. there is no provision under which defence may stand automatically struck off. Neither the landlord before the Revisional Court questioned the correctness of the Trial Court's finding to the effect that entire amount as required by Order 20(4) of the Act was deposited on 27.8.1983 nor Revisional Court specifically reversed that finding.