SUMER CHAND Vs. ATMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit, inter alia, for the ejectment of the Defendant -applicant from the shop in question was filed by the Plaintiff -opposite party on the ground that the applicant was in arrears of rent and had failed to pay the amount inspite of demand. The suit came to be tried by the Judge, Small Causes. On the question of default, the trial Judge took the view that the applicant was in default as alleged by the Plaintiff -opposite party. The applicant had also prayed for being relieved of liability from eviction from the shop in dispute by making deposit as contemplated by Sub -section (4) of Section 20 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 which was indisputably applicable to the premises in dispute. Issue No. 2 was framed by the trial Judge in this regard. The finding of the judge on issue No. 2 was that the applicant was not entitled to be extended the benefit of Sub -section (4) of Section 20 because it was established by the Plaintiff -opposite party that the applicant bad a residential house in a nearby locality with two rooms therein facing the road which could be used as a shop. According to the trial Judge, therefore, the case was covered by the proviso to Sub -section (4) of Section 20 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and that, inasmuch as, the said Sub -section (4) of Section 20 gave a discretion to the court to relieve a tenant of liability from eviction or not, he was not inclined to extend the proviso of that sub section to the applicant. Consequently, the trial Judge decreed the suit also for the ejectment of the applicant from the shop in question. Aggrieved, the applicant challenged the decree in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

(2.) THE learned Addl. District Judge who beard that revision refused to interfere with the decision of the trial Judge. He concurred with the view taken by the trial Judge to the effect that Sub -section (4) of Section 20 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 gave a discretion to the court in the matter of extension or otherwise of its benefit to the tenant who made the deposit as required by that Sub -section. He also agreed with the trial Judge, in his view that the proviso to Sub -section (4) of Section 20 was applicable a so to the case of a non -residential building and that on that account the trial Judge rightly refused to relieve the Defendant of liability from eviction from the suit premises. Hence, the present application in revision under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure by the Defendant in this Court.

(3.) IT rightly was held by two courts below that the provisions of Sub -section (4) of Section 20 are equally applicable to cases both of residential as well as non -residential accommodations. However, they were wrong in taking the view that the proviso to that Sub -section also covered the case of non -residential accommodation irrespective of the specific use of the word "any residential building." therein. On his erroneous view as regards the applicability of the proviso to a non -residential building, the trial Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon him of relieving the applicant of liability for eviction from the premises in dispute. His decision was clearly not according to law. The first Additional district Judge has also failed to exercise his jurisdiction in not setting aside the decision of the trial Judge which was not according to law. Consequently, the case is one which merits interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure.