MOHD SHAHID Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This writ petition filed by the tenant was dismissed by me on 23-3-2004 in respect of eviction decree and it was allowed in respect of arrears of rent. The findings of both the Courts below to the effect that rate of rent was Rs. 500/- per month were reversed by me and it was held by me that rate of rent was Rs. 50/- per month. Regarding the plea of tenant in respect of benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 I held as follows in paragraph 8 of my judgment dated 23-3-2004 : "learned Counsel for the petitioner was granted time to show as to whether petitioner complied with the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act even if rate of rent is taken to be Rs. 50/- per month. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that complete deposits as required by Section 20 (4) of the Act were made even if rate of rent is taken to be Rs. 50/- per month. Hence there is no question of giving benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act to the tenant-petitioner. " Thereafter this review petition was filed. Learned Counsel for the tenant applicant supplied a chart showing that tenant was required to deposit only Rs. 3,699/- in order to avail benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, if the rate of rent was taken to be Rs. 50/- per month while he had deposited Rs. 3,815/-, as mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court. In view of that landlord-respondent was directed to file counter- affidavit.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the landlord concedes that in case rent is held to be Rs. 50/- per month and it is also held that tenant was required to pay court fees only at the rent found due towards 'cost' as provided under Section 20 (4) the tenant will be entitled to the protection of Section 20 (4) of the Act. However, he has argued that the amount deposited by the tenant was short as court fees had been calculated on the basis of rent of Rs. 50/- per month. According to the learned Counsel for landlord- respondent, even if it is held that rate of rent is Rs. 50/- per month, still tenant is required to pay actual Court fees paid by the landlord on the basis of rent of Rs. 500/- per month. In this regard learned Counsel for landlord has cited the following authorities : (i) Gopal Yadav v. Special Judge (Anti- Corruption)/additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi & Ors. , 2002 (1) A. R. C. 197. (ii) Sardar Amrik Singh v. IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar & Ors. , 1996 (2) A. R. C. 188.

(3.) LEANED Counsel for tenant has cited an authority of this Court reported in Ram Kishan v. District Judge, 1976 (2) A. L. R. 763. In the said authority it has been held that it is no where stated in Section 20 (4) that the tenant must deposit rent at the rate claimed by the landlord. If the tenant deposits the rent at a lower rate than claimed by the landlord and defendant's version regarding rate of rent is ultimately accepted then he will be entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. Exactly similar principle will have to be applied in respect of court fees. If the tenant paid the costs including the Court fees as ultimately held taxable by the Court, he will be absolved of his liability to eviction under Section 20 (4) of the Act. In the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court an illustration has been given to the effect that if landlord on the plaint affixec more court fees than required by law, tenant is not liable to pay the same. On the same principle if ultimately it is found that landlord was entitled to lesser rent than claimed, then tenant will have to be absolved from his liability to eviction if he has paid the court fees required to be paid on the amount ultimately found due.