NAIMUDDIN Vs. XLLTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA ANDORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Gupt, J. Heard petitioner's Counsel.

(2.) THIS is tenant's petition against the decree of ejectment passed against him. Suit for ejectment was filed on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The plaintiff claimed rent @ Rs. 2001- per month and according to him the petitioner was in arrears of rent since 1-11-1992 which he did not pay despite service of notice of demand. After termination the tenancy, suit was filed and the defence of the tenant was that he had paid rent upto March, 1995. Rate of rent was, however, admitted. The trial Court recorded the finding of fact that the tenant was in ar rears of rent Since 1-11-1992. The tenant further claimed before the trial Court, the benefit of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. XVII of 1932. The finding of the trial Court was to the effect that benefit of that provision could not be extended to the petitioner as the amount deposited by him was short from the amount which ought to have been deposited as per the provisions of the aforesaid sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. Revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid decree has also been dismissed. The revisional Court has gone into the question whether or not the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act could be extended to the petitioner and after ex amining the fact it also concurred with the finding of the trial Court that the amount deposited under Section 20 (4) was short and, therefore, both the Courts below have refused to extend the benefit of Section 20 (. 4) of the Act to the petitioner.

(3.) THE idea behind enacting sub-sec tion (4) is to protect a honest tenant from eviction on his depositing the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit.