VASUDEO CHATURVEDI Vs. VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This petition is directed against an order dated 23rd February, 1988 by which the court below has refused to decide the question whether the petitioner-tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 20 sub-clause (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as a preliminary issue. By the impugned order, it is directed that the above question will be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Murlidhar, Senior Advocate for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the court below has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in not deciding the above question as a preliminary issue.

(3.) FROM a reading of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, it is clear that it is open to the court to relieve a tenant against his liability for eviction, if he has complied with the condition laid down in the above sub-section in lieu of passing of decree for eviction. FROM this, it is clear that what the Legislature intended was that at the time of final hearing if the court is passing a decree for ejectment, it will relieve the tenant of that decree if he complies with the condition laid down aforesaid. In the circumstances, this can only be possible at the time of the final hearing of a suit. This cannot be done at a preliminary stage. The conclusion whether benefit under aforesaid sub-section would be available to the tenant, is dependent upon the facts and the appropriate stage for deciding this question is at the time of final hearing.