Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This is tenant's writ petition. Original landlord -respondent No. 3 Shrimati Shanti Devi, since deceased and survived by legal representatives, instituted suit for eviction against the petitioner -tenant on the ground of default in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 96 of 1996. Admitted rate of rent is Rs. 70/ - per month. Tenant claimed benefit of section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. According to the said provision if on the first date of hearing tenant deposits entire arrears of rent, interest @ 9 per rent per annum and the cost of the suit, then he may be relieved from the liability of eviction. J.S.C.C., Aligarh held that the deposit made by the tenant under the aforesaid provision was not complete. Accordingly suit for eviction was decreed on 20.7.1992. Decree for arrears of rent along with pendente lite and future rent was also passed. Against the said judgment and decree tenant -petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 26 of 1992. IXth Additional District Judge, Aligarh dismissed the revision on 8.7.1997. Hence this writ petition.
(2.) SUMMONS of the suit was issued to the defendant fixing 24.10.1986. On the said date petitioner did not appear, hence an order was passed directing the suit to proceed ex parte and 6.11.1986 was fixed for ex parte hearing. On 5.11.1986 tenant -petitioner appeared and filed application for recall of the order dated 24.10.1986. On the said date i.e. 5.11.1986 itself tenant also deposited the arrears of rent etc. due till that date. Unfortunately, the said application remained pending for about 5 years and was ultimately allowed on 14.5.1991 and on 14.5.1991 order dated 24.10.1986 was set aside. Prescribed authority took 24.10.1986 to be the date of first hearing. By no stretch of imagination the said date can be said to be date of first hearing, particularly, when order dated 24.10.1986, directing the suit to proceed ex parte, had been set aside on 14.5.1991. Revisional Court held that even if 14.5.1991 was taken to be the date of first hearing, deposit made by the tenant till that date was short and not in complete compliance of section 20(4) of the Act. In para 16 of the writ petition complete details of the deposit up to 14.5.1991 and the exact amount required to be deposited under section 20(4) of the Act by the said date have been given. According to the said para rent from 1.4.1985 to 14.5.1991 comes to Rs. 5163/ -. (In the plaint rent was claimed from 1.4.1985) Rs. 281/ - were required to be deposited towards Court -fees and Rs. 283.80 as advocate's fees. Total comes to Rs. 5727.80. An amount of Rs. 149.10 has been shown as interest @ 9 per cent per annum from 1.4.1985 to 30.11.1986. Adding the two figures the total comes to Rs. 5877.40. By the said date i.e. 14.5.1991 petitioner had already deposited Rs. 6053.50. In this manner the amount deposited by the petitioner was in excess by Rs. 176.10. Revisional Court added an amount of Rs. 1431.53 as interest and in this manner according to the Revisional Court petitioner ought to have deposited Rs. 7159/ -. Revisional Court was clearly wrong in calculating the interest. As the amount of rent was being continuously deposited in the suit, hence no interest was liable to be paid on the said amount. Interest was liable to be paid only for the rent from 1.4.1985 to 30.11.1986 which was deposited on 5.11.1986. Moreover, interest is to be calculated month wise @ 9 per cent per annum. The formula to calculate interest has been discussed in the authority in Kashi Nath v. Sushila Rastogi : 2003 (53) ALR 1. The details given in para 16 of the writ petition have not specifically been denied in the counter -affidavit. Accordingly it is held that the tenant had made complete deposit and was entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of the Act.
(3.) WRIT petition is, therefore, allowed. Judgments of both the Courts below, decree of Trial Court and the order of the Revisional Court in respect of eviction are set aside. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J. : 2004 (54) ALR 177 : 2004 (13) AIC 42 (Alld.) that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of a building covered by Rent Control Act, Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. The property in dispute is a shop situate in Bara Bazar Qasba Atrauli District Aligarh. Atrauli is an important tahsil of Aligarh. Rent of Rs. 70/ - is virtually as well as actually no rent. Accordingly it is directed that with effect from September 2007 onward tenant -petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord -respondent @ Rs. 850/ - per month inclusive of water tax etc. No further amount shall be payable by the petitioner over and above the aforesaid amount.;