SMT. INDER KAUR Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's revision arising out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The suit for ejectment was dismissed on the ground that the tenant had complied with the condition mentioned in Sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Subsection (4) provides:

(2.) THE contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is that the amount in the present case was not unconditionally deposited as the deposit had been made under protest; on this basis he has argued that the tenant was not entitled to get the benefit of Sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. The argument of the Learned Counsel has no merit as the Section uses the word "unconditionally" and not "without protest*'. Unconditional payment means that the amount can be paid to the landlord without any precondition being attached thereto. Conditional payment means that if a condition is fulfilled, then the payment will be made and if that condition is not fulfilled, the payment will not be made. When a person deposits money under protest, he imposes no conditions; he only shows his unwillingness to accept the other side's case, but be places no conditions on the payment of the amount to the landlord. The deposit of the money under protest cannot amount to a conditional deposit of the amount. The amount had been placed unconditionally at the disposal of the Court; it must therefore be deemed to be an unconditional deposit as contemplated by Sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. There is thus no error of jurisdiction in the judgments of the courts below.

(3.) IN the result, the revision is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.