K. N. Goyal, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition arising out of a suit for. rent and ejectment filed by the landlords opposite-parties 3 and 4. The suit was filed in December 1977 in the court of Small Causes. Arrears of rent were claimed for the period from November 1S75 to August 1977. The building was governed by the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Eviction was claimed on the ground of default under section 20 (2) (a) of that Act. The date of hearing mentioned in the summons issued to the defendant-petitioner was 6-1-78. On that date he moved for adjournment on the ground that his counsel had gone out. The case was adjourned to 10-2-78. On that date the defendant-petitioner made an application for permission to deposit the arrears of rent along with costs etc. in accordance with . section 20 (4) of the Act. He was allowed to deposit the amount at his own risk ; in other words, the question whether the deposit would be deemed sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 20 (4) was left open. THIS, question was the subject-matter of issue no. 2 framed in the case. The trial court held that in view of the Explanation (a) appended to section 20 (4) the first hearing was 6-1-78, the date mentioned in the summons, and inasmuch as the sum required to be deposited had not been deposited on that date, the defendant was not entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4). The defendant having been found a defaulter, a decree for eviction was passed against him. . The District Judge in a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act agreed with the trial court and dismissed the revision. Thereupon the petitioner came to this court.
(2.) THE learned single Judge before whom the petition came up for disposal was confronted with conflicting views expressed ' in Gaya Prasad v. Pramod Kumar Shukla, 1980 LLJ 56 and Jagannath v. Ram Chander Srivastava, 1982 AWC 623, and accordingly, referred the whole case to a larger Bench. It is thus that this case has came up before us. In Gaya Prasad v. Pramod Kumar Shukla (supra) it was decided that the date of "first hearing" would include a date of hearing changed by the court either suo motu or on the application of one of the parties. In Jagannath v. Ram Chander Srivastava (supra) on the other hand, it was held by another Bench that the date of "first hearing" would be only the date mentioned in the summons and not an adjourned date. After the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act no.' 13 of 1972) was passed, the U. P. Legislature also passed the U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (Act No. 37 of 1972), whereby a new rule 5 was added to Order XV of the Code of Civil Procedure. This new rule 5 provided that in any suit for ejectment and arrears of rent the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing of the suit, deposit the entire amount of rent admitted by him to be due, and thereafter throughout the continuance of the suit, deposit regularly the amount of monthly rent, due at the rate admitted by him, and in the event of any default in this regard, the court may, unless after considering any representation made by him in that behalf it allows him further time on security being furnished for the amount, refuse to entertain any defence or, as the case may be, strike off his defence.
(3.) SECTION 20 (4) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, on the other hand provided that in any suit for eviction on the ground of default in arrears of payment mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20, if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him together with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit in respect thereof, 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. This was subject to an exception mentioned in the proviso to that sub-section, with which we are not concerned in the instant case. Thus both section 20 (4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 and Order XV, rule 5, CPC added by Act No. 37 of 1972 use the expression "first hearing". This expression came up for judicial interpretation in a number of decisions and it was decided by this Court that the expression would include a date on which the date of hearing is adjourned by the court for any reason whatsoever. Among the cases in which this view was expressed were Krishan Lal v. L. Narendra Kumar Jain, 1978 AWC 619 and Mathura Prasad v. Bikram Jeet Singh, 1978 AWC 523. This view was ultimately approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ved Prakash v. Vishwa Mohan, 1980 AWC 395, a case under section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 as it stood prior to an amendment made by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976, which shall presently be noticed.;