Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
SUBHASH CHAND JAIN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGESAHARANPUR AND OTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/02/1989
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)
BENCH:
PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)
DUTT, M.M. (J)
KANIA, M.H.
CITATION:
1989 AIR 1070 1989 SCR (1) 837
1989 SCC (2) 110 JT 1989 (1) 408
1989 SCALE (1)483
ACT:
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972--S.20(4)--Tenant’s right to claim relief
against eviction on payment of entire arrears of rent on or
before the first date of hearing--Requirement of strict
compliance.
HEADNOTE:
Respondent-owners’ suit for recovery of arrears of rent
was decreed ex-parte when the appellant-tenant failed to
appear in the suit; however, on a subsequent application
made by him the decree was set aside on 24.3.1977. The
appellant made a deposit of Rs.2,912 on 30.5.1977 stating
that the said date was the first date of hearing in the
suit. The appellant, who had first stated that he was not
obliged to deposit the entire arrears as they were barred by
time, later on prayed for amendment of his pleadings and
sought to deposit the time-barred arrears on 29.9.1977, but
the deposit was actually made on 1.10.1977. The Court al-
lowed the prayer for amendment but the Additional District
Judge held that the appellant was liable to be evicted from
the premises since he had failed to deposit the entire
arrears on or before 30.8.1977 which was the date of first
hearing in the suit in terms of s. 20(4) of the U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972. The appellant’s writ petition challenging the afore-
said finding was dismissed by the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: As the suit was in the nature of a small cause
suit, and as the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act did not
contemplate the fixation of any date for settlement of
issues, it must be taken that 30.8.1977 was the date of
first hearing in the suit, and inasmuch as the entire amount
due as arrears of rent had not been deposited within time,
the High Court was right in dismissing the Writ Petition.
[839D]
JUDGMENT:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1728 of
1989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.1982 of the Allahabad
838
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6324 of 1980.
R.K. Garg, M.K.D. Namboodiri and S. Balakrishnan for the
Appellant.
S.N. Kaicker, Pradeep Kumar Jain for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATHAK, CJ Special leave granted.
This tenant’s appeal by special leave arises out of a
suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and
damages.
The suit was brought by the respondents who claimed that
a shop owned by them had been let to the appellant, that the
appellant had fallen in arrears of rent from 1 February,
1968 and had not paid the arrears, notwithstanding a notice
of demand dated 8 January, 1975 served on the appellant. The
suit was decreed ex parte by the Trial Court and the decree
was set aside by the first Appellate Court. In writ Petition
before the High Court, it was urged on behalf of the appel-
lant that the appellant had deposited the arrears of rent
under sub-s. (4) of s. 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, and that
therefore the Court should have made an order relieving the
appellant against his liability for eviction on the ground
of arrears of rent. The High Court noted that the suit was
filed on 12 February, 1975 and as the appellant did not
appear on 4 April, 1975, the day fixed in the summons, the
suit proceeded ex parte and was decreed. The High Court also
noticed that upon subsequent application made by the appel-
lant the ex parte decree was set aside on 24 March, 1977,
and on 30 May, 1977, the fresh date now fixed, the appellant
made a deposit of Rs.2,912 accompanied by an application
stating that the said date was the first date of hearing and
he was making a deposit of the entire arrears of rent. The
appellant first stated that he was not obliged to deposit
the entire arrears of rent as they were barred by time.
However, the appellant prayed for amendment of his plead-
ings. On 29 September, 1977, the appellant sought to deposit
the time barred arrears also and got the tender passed for
that purpose. In pursuance of the tender the amount was
deposited on 1 October, 1977. The amendment application was
allowed, but when the matter came before the learned First
Additional District Judge, he took the view that the appel-
lant had failed to comply with the conditions of sub-s. (4)
of s. 20 of the Act. He held that 30 August, 1977 was
839
the date of first hearing in the suit within the meaning of
sub-s. (4) of s. 20. He recorded that the parties did not
dispute that the time barred arrears claimed by the respond-
ents were also required to be deposited under sub-s. (4) of
s. 20. As the time barred arrears had been deposited by the
appellant on 1 October, 1977 only, the High Court took the
view that the entire arrears of rent had not been deposited
on or before the date of first hearing. The High Court
declined to go into the further question whether the depos-
its made by the appellant on 1 October, 1977 ought to relate
back to 29 September, 1977. In the result the High Court
dismissed the Writ Petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we see
no reason to take a different view from that adopted by the
High Court. The High Court was plainly right in holding that
30 August, 1977 was the date of first hearing in the suit.
As the suit was in the nature of a small cause suit, and as
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act did not contemplate
the fixation of any date for settlement of issues, it must
be taken that 30 August, 1977 was the date of first hearing
in the suit, and inasmuch as the entire amount due as ar-
rears of rent had not been deposited within time, the High
Court was right in dismissing the writ petition.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed but there As no order as
to
costs.
H.L.C. Appeal dis-
missed.
840