- (1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. D. Tiwari learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS revision, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, has been preferred against the order dated 25-11- 2006, whereby the petitioner-tenant's application for permission to deposit the shortfall in the amount calculated under Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulating of Letting Rent Eviction) Act, 1972 thereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') was rejected. The petitioner had claimed the benefit of the aforesaid sub- Section (4) of Section 20 of the Act and had made deposits of Rs. 16,000/- in that context in the Trial Court. While considering the plea of the tenant on this point, the trial Court at the time of delivery of judgment found that this amount, which is claimed to have been deposited, was sought by Rs. 11706. 18 paise. Accordingly, this suit of the plaintiff- appellant was decreed eviction of the petitioner-tenant. The petitioner preferred a revision against this decree and in the Revisional Court, he moved a fresh application for permission to make deposit of the remaining amount as was to be calculated and deposited at the initial stage under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The Court Below, while considering this prayer of the petitioner in the light of the objections raised from the other side, had found that such permission could not be granted as the Act did not provide any such relaxation in the time for making the deposit under Section 20 (4) aforesaid and also found that the amount, which could not be deposited because of the alleged miscalculation made by the Counsel, was not such which can definitely be said to be a result of miscalculation and accordingly the impugned order was passed and the prayer was refused. The learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, no doubt do not provide for extension of time to make such deposit, still the Court in order to do complete justice in a particular case can give permission extending time for making such deposit at a later stage by the tenant. The learned Counsel relies upon the case law of Raj Bahadur Singh v. District Judge, Fatehpur & Ors. , 1998 (2) JCLR 472 (All) : 1998 (2) A. R. C. Allahabad Rent Cases 416.
(3.) AS is apparent from the facts of the present case, the Counsel of the petitioner is said to have mis- calculated the amount for making such deposit under Section 20 (4) of the Act as being short by Rs. 11706. 18 paise. It is such a huge shortage of amount that the presumption with regard to its mis- calculation can hardly be drawn by the Court. The shortfall in the total amount is large which could not be noticed by petitioner's Counsel. The suit remained pending for long before the trial Court and it could be noticed only when the judgment of the trial Court was delivered. It is thereafter that at the revisional stage, such prayer has been made for permission to make a deposit. Therefore, the case law of Raj Bahadur Singh (supra) will definitely not be applicable in the facts of this case. This Court while doing complete justice in that particular case found that the shortage in the deposit of total amount was very nominal being only in the sum of Rs. 15. 40 paise. Here the shortage in the deposit is not nominal or minimal. It is a big shortage to which no Court can shut its eyes nor it is expected of a defendant-tenant to commit such blunder. Therefore, if this much amount was not deposited at a proper stage when the tenant is required to make the deposit under Section 20 (4) of the Act, it is a blunder not pardonable by the Court. Simple plea of the tenant regarding his having good intention in the matter can definitely not help him out. The Court below has passed a perfectly justified and legal order, which requires no interference under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The revision is without merits. In result, it fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;