MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. MOHAMMAD IMRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Shivangi Nanda, learned Advocate holding brief of Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Ms. Smriti Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for landlord respondents.

(2.) The tenant petitioner is before this Court questioning the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Causes, Jhansi in SCC Suit No. 17 of 2015 decreeing the suit for eviction as well as the judgment and order dtd. 12/4/2025 passed by Additional District Judge Court No.4 Jhansi affirming the judgment of the trial court.

(3.) Ms. Nanda, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner assailing the judgment and degree, submitted before the Court that tenant petitioner having made sufficient deposit of arrears of rent due to be paid as per notice coupled with interest, court fee and expenses, was entitled to statutory benefit provided for under Sec. 20 (4) of the U.P. Urban Building Control of Letting Rent and eviction Act 1972. She argued that the admitted rate of rent as per the plaint itself was Rs.80.00 per month and the amount that was due to be as per claim in the notice was with effect from 1/4/2013 till 12/5/2015 with further two months of June and July, as the suit came to be instituted in August 2015. So according to Ms. Nanda the amount that was to be calculated towards the arrears should have been at the rate of Rs.80.00 and further taxes and interest with Advocate fee and according to her the total amount that was deposited on the first date of hearing was Rs.8,000.00 which included rent, taxes, interest and Advocate fee. This deposit was made according to her on 13/9/2015 soon after filing of the suit vide challan 57-C and the rent subsequently came to be deposited continuously. However, trial court found the deposit to be not sufficient for want of requisite deposit towards damages and thus, it came to be held that, petitioner having not deposited the amount as per Sec. 20 (4),was not entitled to avail statutory benefit.