Kailash Wati vs Addl. District Judge Budaun & Ors.

S.U. Khan, J.

This is tenant''s writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 3 Ram Charan Lal filed SCC Suit No. 6/82 against the petitioner before J.S.C/C.J., Budaun, J.S.C.C. decided the suit on 4121982. The operative portion translated in English reads as follows:

�Plaintiff has filed suit for eviction of defendant from the property in dispute suit is decreed for recovery of Rs. 2445/ as rent and Rs. 25/ as damages for use and occupation. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future from the defendant at the rate of Rs. 150/ per month on payment of required Court fee. The amount deposited by the defendant in the suit shall be adjusted from the abovementioned decreetal amount.�

In the operative portion it was not clearly mentioned that the suit was decreed for eviction also. An order was passed by this Court on 341985 recording statement of learned Counsel for respondentlandlord that decree prepared by the office of J.S.C.C. did not mention the amount of cost correctly and respondentlandlord proposed to move an amendment application under Section 152, C.P.C. for amending the decree. It was directed through the said order that if amendment application was filed within a week then the same should be decided by trial Court within a month. Even though twenty years have passed since then still nothing has been brought on the record to show that any amendment application was filed. On 2912004 I directed learned Counsel for landlordrespondent (who had been engaged subsequently) to intimate the Court regarding compliance of the order 341985. No intimation was given by the learned Counsel for respondents and today when the case was called out in the revised list no one appeared for the landlordrespondent.

Against the judgment and decree dated 4121982 tenant petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 104/82 under Section 25, P.S.C.C. Act against A.D.J., Budaun through judgment and order dated 882004 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition by the tenantpetitioner.

Tenantpetitioner had deposited some amount on the first date of hearing (1671982) and had claimed benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Rent Regulations Act (U.P. Act No. 13/72). By virtue of the aforesaid subsection tenant may be absolved from his liability of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent if on the first date of hearing he deposits the entire arrears of rent due till then along with 9% interest and cost of the suit. On the first date of hearing tenant deposited Rs. 4,448.50/. The Revisional Court in its judgment on pages 75 and 76 of the paper book has mentioned that the tenant was required to deposit Rs. 4551.45/ on 16782 the first date of hearing hence there was short fall in deposit to the tune of Rs. 103.05. The Revisional Court has given a detailed chart. In the last but one item the amount of rent mentioned is Rs. 3,350, which is the rent from 6 91980 at the rate of Rs. 150/per month. From 691980 till 67 1982 (22 months) the amount of rent comes to Rs. 3,300/. The A.D.J. has added Rs. 50/ as 10 days rent from 671982 till 16 71982. This was wrong. Until expiry of the month rent does not become due. After deducting the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50/ from the shortfall of Rs. 103.05/ (determined by the Revisional Court) the figure which is arrived at is Rs. 53.05. It is almost 1% of total amount due.

It has been held by the Supreme Court in Man Chand Pal v. Shanti Agarwal, AIR 2002 SC 955, that minor deficiency in deposit under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. 13/72 shall be ignored. In my opinion, therefore, deficiency of about Rs. 50/ out of the requirement of about Rs. 4,500/ may be termed to be negligent. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgments, decree and order passed by the Courts below are set aside. Suit of the plaintiff for eviction is dismissed.

I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J., 2004(2) JCLR 452 (All) : 2004 (2) ARC 64, that while granting relief to the tenant against eviction in respect of building covered by U.P. Rent Regulation Act, writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Rent of Rs. 150/ for the shop in dispute is quite inadequate. Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from July 2005 onwards petitioner shall pay rent to the landlordrespondent No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 500/ per month.