Matter is called out.
Learned counsel for the appellant is present but none is
present for the respondents.
There are 11 respondents in this appeal. As per office
report, respondent nos.1(i) to (vi), 3 and 5 are served but no one
has entered appearance on their behalf. Respondent nos. 2 and
4 have refused to accept notice. Notice upon respondent no.6
was served as per Certificate of Service received from the High
Court. Respondent nos.7 to 11 have refused to accept the notice
and, therefore, notices have been affixed at their residence.
Charanjeet Kaur In view of the above, service of notice on the respondents is
held sufficient.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have
perused the record.
The appellant is a tenant. A suit for recovery of arrears of
rent and eviction was instituted against the appellant after
determining the tenancy inter alia on the ground of default in
payment of rent and making of material alteration in the
tenanted accommodation. After exchange of pleadings, the trial
court framed as many as eight issues. On Issue No.4 i.e.
whether the tenant/defendant has made material alterations in
the accommodation in dispute, the trial court returned a finding
in favour of the tenant. However, as rest of the issues were
decided against the tenant (appellant herein), the trial court
decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne
profit and ejectment.
Against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated
03.10.1981, Civil Revision No.467 of 1981 was filed before the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which came to be
dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated
11.05.2010.
Assailing the decree of ejectment, the learned counsel for
the appellant has raised a short point – whether in view of
deposit of Rs.8910/- made by the defendant/appellant towards
arrears of rent, interest and costs of the suit, vide application
dated 21st October 1978 (Annexure P2), the appellant/tenant was
entitled to protection against eviction in light of the provisions of
sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
[U.P. Act No.13 of 1972] (for short “U.P. Act”)?
It is urged that there is no dispute that the requisite
amount was deposited before the first date of hearing, as would
be clear from the observations of the trial court in paragraph 12
of its judgment dated 03.10.1981. However, the benefit of sub-
section (4) of Section 20 has been denied only on the ground that
the appellant claimed the rate of rent as Rs.45 per month
whereas it was found to be Rs.150 per month. It is submitted
that the trial court and the revisional court have wrongly taken
the view that the above discrepancy would render the deposit
conditional thereby disentitling the defendant to the discretionary
relief under sub-section (4) of Section 20.
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellant and perused the record. We find that the trial
court framed Issue No.6 as regards entitlement of the
defendant/appellant to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section
20. While returning a finding on Issue No.6, though the trial
court accepted that an amount of Rs.8910/- towards arrears of
rent, interest and costs of the suit was deposited by the
defendant/tenant before filing the written statement but held the
said deposit not unconditional as in the written statement, the
defendant pleaded the rate of rent as Rs.45/- per month, which,
ultimately, was found to be Rs.150/- per month. What is
important is that the trial court recorded no finding that the
amount deposited was short of the requisite amount or that it
was not by or before the first date of hearing in the suit.
In Vijay Laxmi Gangal v. Mahendra Pratap Garg1, a
three-Judge Bench of this Court while conferring the benefit of
the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act held
as follows:
“The Act is a social piece of legislation which leans in favour of
tenants. Merely because the tenant had failed to prove his case
that the rent was only Rs 125 per mensem and not Rs 360 per
mensem, the discretionary relief could not be denied to him even
though he had deposited the arrears of rent at the rate claimed
by the landlord in the plaint together with interest and costs
within the time mentioned in Section 20(4) of the Act. It is not
possible to lay down any broad and general proposition that the
discretionary relief should be denied to the tenant in all cases
where he fails to prove his case regarding the quantum of rent
even though he had deposited the rent at the rate claimed by the
landlord in the plaint together with interest and costs within the
time as required by Section 20(4) of the Act.”
In light of the law expounded by this Court in Vijay Laxmi
Gangal (supra), while keeping in mind that there is no dispute
that on or before the first date of hearing the appellant had
deposited the arrears of rent as demanded together with interest
and costs of the suit, we are of the view that the appellant/tenant
was entitled to the benefit of the provision of sub-section (4) of
Section 20 of the U.P. Act and the courts below were not justified
in denying its benefit to the appellant/tenant only on the ground
that the plea taken by him with regard to the rate of rent was
found incorrect. Consequently, the decision of the courts below
on Issue No.6 is reversed. It is held that the appellant is entitled
to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act.
For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High
Court to the extent it affirms the decree of eviction is set-aside.
The order of the trial court to the extent it directs for eviction of
the appellant is set-aside. As no challenge to the remaining part
of the decree has been made before us, the remaining part of the
decree is maintained.
The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There
is no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
(Manoj Misra)
(Aravind Kumar)
New Delhi; March 01, 2023