- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 3 Ram Charan Lal filed SCC Suit No. 6/82 against the petitioner before J. S. C/c. J. , Budaun, J. S. C. C. decided the suit on 4-12-1982. The operative portion translated in English reads as follows: "plaintiff has filed suit for eviction of defendant from the property in dispute suit is decreed for recovery of Rs. 2445/- as rent and Rs. 25/- as damages for use and occupation. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future from the defendant at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month on payment of required Court fee. The amount deposited by the defendant in the suit shall be adjusted from the above-mentioned decreetal amount. "
(2.) IN the operative portion it was not clearly mentioned that the suit was decreed for eviction also. An order was passed by this Court on 3-4-1985 recording statement of learned Counsel for respondent- landlord that decree prepared by the office of J. S. C. C. did not mention the amount of cost correctly and respondent-landlord proposed to move an amendment application under Section 152, C. P. C. for amending the decree. It was directed through the said order that if amendment application was filed within a week then the same should be decided by trial Court within a month. Even though twenty years have passed since then still nothing has been brought on the record to show that any amendment application was filed. On 29-1-2004 I directed learned Counsel for landlord-respondent (who had been engaged subsequently) to intimate the Court regarding compliance of the order 3-4-1985. No intimation was given by the learned Counsel for respondents and today when the case was called out in the revised list no one appeared for the landlord-respondent. Against the judgment and decree dated 4-12-1982 tenant- petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 104/82 under Section 25, P. S. C. C. Act against A. D. J. , Budaun through judgment and order dated 8-8-2004 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition by the tenant-petitioner. Tenant-petitioner had deposited some amount on the first date of hearing (16-7-1982) and had claimed benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Rent Regulations Act (U. P. Act No. 13/72 ). By virtue of the aforesaid sub-section tenant may be absolved from his liability of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent if on the first date of hearing he deposits the entire arrears of rent due till then along with 9% interest and cost of the suit. On the first date of hearing tenant deposited Rs. 4,448. 50/ -. The Revisional Court in its judgment on pages 75 and 76 of the paper book has mentioned that the tenant was required to deposit Rs. 4551. 45/- on 16-7-82 the first date of hearing hence there was short fall in deposit to the tune of Rs. 103. 05. The Revisional Court has given a detailed chart. In the last but one item the amount of rent mentioned is Rs. 3,350, which is the rent from 6- 9-1980 at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. From 6-9-1980 till 6-7- 1982 (22 months) the amount of rent comes to Rs. 3,300/ -. The A. D. J. has added Rs. 50/- as 10 days rent from 6-7-1982 till 16- 7-1982. This was wrong. Until expiry of the month rent does not become due. After deducting the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50/- from the shortfall of Rs. 103. 05/- (determined by the Revisional Court) the figure which is arrived at is Rs. 53. 05. It is almost 1% of total amount due.
(3.) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in Man Chand Pal v. Shanti Agarwal, AIR 2002 SC 955, that minor deficiency in deposit under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13/72 shall be ignored. In my opinion, therefore, deficiency of about Rs. 50/- out of the requirement of about Rs. 4,500/- may be termed to be negligent. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgments, decree and order passed by the Courts below are set aside. Suit of the plaintiff for eviction is dismissed. I have held in Khursheeda v. A. D. J. , 2004 (2) JCLR 452 (All) : 2004 (2) ARC 64, that while granting relief to the tenant against eviction in respect of building covered by U. P. Rent Regulation Act, writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Rent of Rs. 150/- for the shop in dispute is quite inadequate. Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from July 2005 onwards petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord-respondent No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Petition allowed. .;