MAHADEO SINGH Vs. SHESH NARAIN PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question involved in this civil revision is whether or not the amount deposited by a tenant under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) can be accepted as security under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, in the event, the defendant judgment -debtor applies for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him. The revisionist is a defendant in the suit filed by the opposite parties for his eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. It appears that some dispute arose between the parties, as a result of which under an order dated 16.3.1985 passed by Munsif, Gonda on an application moved by the present revisionist under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972, he was allowed to deposit rent in court without prejudice to the rights of the parties. It is said that the revisionist continued to make deposits Later on a notice dated 19.1.87 was given to the present revisionist saying that the revisionist was in arrears of rent for the period from 1 -4 -1983 to 31 -12 -1986 at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per month. According to the revisionist he had sent a reply which was however, not received by the plaintiff opposite party, who ultimately filed a suit for eviction being S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1987. It has been submitted on behalf of the revisionist that a written statement was also filed resisting the claim made in the plaint The said suit was decree, ex parte on 2.9.1988 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Gonda. The order says that the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 4040/ - as arrears of rent and ejectment is decreed with ex parte costs. The claim for damages pendente lite and future at the rate of Rs. 100/was also decreed subject to payment of court -fee.

(2.) ACCORDING to the revisionist, he had deposited entire amount as required under Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 in the trial court and the same was held in deposit on the date the ex parte decree was passed. According to the revisionist, the case was fixed on 22 -8 -1988 but the lawyers were on strike on that date, hence the case could not be taken up. Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the applicant was informed of the next dated fixed as 8 -9 -1988 orally but the ex parte decree was passed on 2.9.1988 i.e. before the date of which he was informed.

(3.) ON behalf of the revisionist, it has been submitted that the amount deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was still in deposit and it should have been accepted as security under the proviso to Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the deposit made by the revisionist under Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972, was a conditional deposit as the revisionist had challenged the rate of rent : therefore, the deposit could not be treated as a security. He has further submitted that the revisionist could withdraw the amount deposited by him and could deposit it for compliance of Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.