Som Prakash vs District Judge, Dehradun and Others

Alok Singh, J.—Tenant petitioner has preferred present writ petition assailing the judgment and order dated 22.02.2006, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Courts, Dehradun, whereby SCC Suit No. 8 of 1991, Smt. Prakash Kaur vs. Sri Som Prakash, was decreed in favour of the landlord, directing the tenant petitioner to hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the landlord within 30 days as well as against the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2006, passed by the District Judge/Revisional Court, Dehradun, whereby SCC Revision No. 8 of 2006 filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, was dismissed, upholding the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2006, passed by JCC/Trial Court. Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the tenant petitioner submitted that since landlord has claimed rent from 10.02.1988 to 10.10.1990 amounting Rs. 1602.67 and water tax thereon amounting Rs. 268.67, therefore, under sub-Section 4 of Section 20 of the U.P. Act, 1972, tenant was supposed to deposit amount claimed in the plaint on the first date of hearing since tenant has deposited Rs. 5000/-, therefore, no decree for eviction ought to have been passed against the petitioner in view of sub-Section 4 of Section 20 of the U.P. Act, 1972.

Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any other point.

It is stated in the plaint that tenant has not paid rent to the landlord with effect from 10.09.1984 till the date of issuance of the notice of demand and terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 06.09.1990, however, rent from 10.9.1984 to 09.02.1988 has become a time barred. therefore, same is not being claimed in the plaint.

Learned counsel for the tenant petitioner does not dispute that tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 10.09.1984. He, however, submits that since in the plaint rent is demanded from 10.02.1988, therefore, tenant petitioner is obliged to deposit rent demanded horn 10.02.1988 which was deposited under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act, 1972.

Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 reads as under:

Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds.

(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted for the eviction of a tenant from a building, notwithstanding the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time or on the expiration of a notice to quit or in any other manner:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall bar a suit for the eviction of a tenant on the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time where the tenancy for a fixed term was entered into by or in pursuance of a compromise or adjustment arrived at with reference to a suit, appeal, revision or execution proceeding, which is either recorded in Court or otherwise reduced to writing and signed by the tenant.

(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely:

(a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand:

Provided that in relation to a tenant who is a member of the armed forces of the Union and in whose favour the prescribed authority under the indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 (Act No. IV of 1925), has issued a certificate that he is serving under special conditions within the meaning of Section 3 of that Act or where he has died by enemy action while so serving, then in relation to his heirs, the words "four months" in this clause shall be deemed to have been stastituted by the words "one year"

(b) that the tenant has wilfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the building;

(c) that the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction or structural alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it;

(d) that the tenant [has without the consent in writing of the landlord used it for a purpose other than the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the building or otherwise done any act which is inconsistent with such use], or has been convicted under any law for the time being in force of an offence of using the building or allowing it to be used for illegal or immoral purpose;

(e) that the tenant has sub-let, in contravention of the provisions of Section 25, or as the case may be, of the old Act the whole or any part of the building;

(f) that the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord, and the letter has not waived his right of reentry or condoned the conduct of the tenant;

(g) that the tenant was allowed to occupy the building as part of his contract of employment under the landlord, and his employment has ceased.

(4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays of [tenders to the landlord or deposits in Court] the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord''s costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of Section 30, the Court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area.

[Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section-

(a) the expression "first hearing" means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant;

(b) the expression "cost of the suit" includes one-half of the amount of Counsel''s fee taxable for a contested suit.]

(5) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the Court to pass a decree on the basis of an agreement, compromise or satisfaction recorded under Rule 3 of Order XXIII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

[(6) Any amount deposited by the tenant under sub-section (4) or under Rule 5 of Order XV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall be paid to the landlord forthwith on his application without prejudice to the parties'' pleadings and subject to the ultimate decision in the suits.]

As per Section 20(2)(a) of the Act, suit for eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted if tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand.

Sub-Section 4 of Section 20 of the Act stipulates that protection from the eviction shall be available to such tenant who on the first date of hearing of the suit either pays or tenders or deposits in the Court, the rent and damages for the use and occupation of the building due from him together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord''s costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-Section 1 of Section 30 of the Act.

The bare perusal of sub-Section 4 of Section 20 of the Act demonstrates that tenant is required to pay or tender or deposit the rent due/outstanding against the tenant and not demanded by the landlord.

This is settled position of law that landlord in view of the Limitation Act, although may not claim the relief of recovery of the rent for more than three years, however, tenant is duty bound to pay or tender or deposit the amount due irrespective of the relief claimed or not. Since, tenant has deposited only the amount claimed in the plaint and has failed to deposit the actual amount due of the arrears of rent along with the interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum thereon, therefore, deposit made by the tenant petitioner was short of the amount as contemplated under sub-Section 4 of Section 20 of the Act. Hence, decree, passed by both the Courts below deserved to be confirmed.

At this stage, it is informed by the learned counsel for the parties that petitioner has already handed over the possession to the landlord and now landlord is in possession. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.