Shiv Kumari Gupta (Smt.) vs IVth Additional District Judge and Others

Vikram Nath, J.—This writ petition by the landlord is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th January, 1990 and 25th July, 1991, whereby the suit of the petitioner-landlord for arrears of rent and ejectment was partly decreed only in so far as the arrears of rent were concerned and has been dismissed for the ejectment of the tenant-respondent No. 3.

The dispute relates to House No. 46/101, Hatya, Kanpur Nagar of which the petitioner is the owner and landlord and respondent No. 3, Baboo Lal, was the tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 15. As there was default in payment of rent with effect from 1st May, 1984, the landlord petitioner, after receiving the notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The tenant contested the suit on various pleas; that he had made the deposit as required u/s 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and therefore, was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of said section and the suit was liable to be dismissed. The trial Court vide judgment dated 15th January, 1990 held that the suit of the petitioner, for recovery of arrears of rent was liable to be decreed. But in so far as the ejectment was concerned, it granted benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, that the deposit was sufficient and accordingly, dismissed the suit for ejectment. The landlord-petitioner filed revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and raised specific ground that the tenant had not deposited the water-tax, the interest and cost of the suit as provided u/s 20 (4) of the Act and he was not entitled to the benefit of the said section. The Revisional Court, agreed with the contention of the landlord-petitioner that the amount required under law has not been deposited by the tenant, but it observed that the same could be recovered by the landlord in the execution proceedings. On this ground it dismissed the revision vide judgment dated 25th July, 1991. Aggrieved by the said judgment the writ petition has been filed by the landlord.

I have heard Sri R.K. Misra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Agarwal and Sri V.N. Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent tenant has made a statement that he has no instructions in this case.

Sri R.K. Misra, has contended that the compliance of Section 20 (4) of the Act, has to be strictly made by the tenant and even if any of the amount covering various heads mentioned therein are not deposited, the tenant would not be entitled to protection from eviction. From perusal of the Revisional Court judgment it appears that the Revisional Court has causally taken this aspect and has, in fact, permitted the tenant to make good the deficit in the deposits, to be deposited on the execution side and has dismissed the revision. The law in question is well settled, that strict compliance is necessary. I do not agree with the liberty given by the Revisional Court to make good deficit in the execution proceedings and therefore, set aside the judgment of the Revisional Court to decide afresh and record specific finding as to whether the rent liable to be deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing u/s 20 (4) of the Act had been fully deposited or not. The said compliance is to be specifically looked into by the Revisional Court. In case the Court comes to the conclusion that any of the heads mentioned in the Section 20 (4) of the Act, are not complied with by the tenant, he would not be entitled to the protection from eviction under the said provision.

Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Revisional Court dated 25th July, 1991 is set aside and matter is remanded to the Revisional Court for deciding the case afresh in the light of observations made above. Since the revision is pending since 1990, the Revisional Court will make an endeavour to decide the revision at the earliest within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.