Bhagwandin, J. - (1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of cer-tiomri quashing the judgment and order dated 29-7-1987 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court and judgment and order dated 4-9-1987 passed by revisional court in SCC Revision No. 98 of 1987.
(2.) A suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages ex pane on 12-3-1986 against the petitioner. He, there fore, filed an application on 10-4-1986 under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex pane decree. On 11-4-1986 he moved an application for adjustment of Rs. 1044/- deposited by him under Section 30(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1972) and also permission to deposit the balance, of Rs. 1700/- in compliance of Sec tion 17(1) of the Judge Small Causes Court Act. After hearing the parties the Judge Small Causes Court rejected the application on 24-5-1986 for adjustment of the money deposited nnder Section 30(1) of Act No. 13 of 1972. Then the petitioner deposited Rs. 1044/- on 28-5-1986. The Judge Small Causes Court despite of that rejects the ap plication under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC on the ground that an amount of Rs. 1700/- was deposited on 24-4-1986 and the balance of Rs. 1044/- has been deposited on 28-5-1986 after expiry of the prescribed period of thirty days. Thus 'there was no full compliance of Section 17(1) of the Judge Small Causes Court Act. Against this order, the petitioner filed a Revision before the District Judge, which was ultimately dismissed by IVth Ad ditional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar by impugned order dated 4-9-1987 holding that though the application for setting aside the exparte decree has been filed within the limitation but an amount of Rs. 1044/- was deposited on 28-5-1986, thus the com pliance of Section 17 (1) of the Judge Small Causes Court Act has not been made within 30 days. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The short question falls for con sideration before me is that the rent deposited under Section 30(1) of Act No. 13 of 1972 may be adjusted in compliance of Section 17(1) of the Judge Small Causes Court Act.
(3.) THE contention of the learned Coun sel for the petitioner is that both the courts below have committed an error in holding that the deposit of rent under Section 30(1) of Act No. 13 of 1972 is not adjustable in the deposit to be made in the court the amount due from him under the decree or in pur suance of the judgment and also that the deposits whatsoever made by the tenant (petitioner) was time barred. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents urged that the deposits made under Section 30(1) of Act No. 13 of 1972 can be utilized for the purposes of deposit required under Section 20 (4) and Section 39 of the Act. It cannot be utilized for a satisfaction of re quirement of Section 17(1) of the Judge Small Causes Court Act. Admittedly the petitioner has deposited Rs. 1700/- within the stipulated period. He has, however, prayed before the court below that the balance of Rs. 1044/- to be considered to have been adjusted with the deposits made under Section 30(1) of Act No. 13 of 1972 and, therefore, treating thus the money so deposited be deemed to have been the deposits in compliance of Section 17(1) of Jduge Small Causes Court Act. THE court below has rejected the application and al lowed time till 24-5-1986 to deposit Rs. 1044. Since the petitioner has not made deposits within the period allowed by the court, it would be deemed, the petitioner, therefore, will not be allowed to get benefit of such deposit. However, as it relates to the other points regarding the adjustment of the amount deposited under Section 30(1) of Act No. 13 of 1972 towards the com pliance of Section 17 of Judge Small Causes Court Act adverting to the proviso of Section 17 of Judge Small Causes Court Act necessary which reads as under: "Provided that an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex pane or for a review of judgment shaH, at the time of presenting his ap plication either deposit in the Court the amount due from him under the decrees or in pursuance of the judgment or give such security for the performance of the decree of compliance with the judgment as the Court may, on a previous applica tion made by him in this behalf, have directed." THE object behind this proviso is that unscrupulous tenants against whom rent is due, who do not appear on the date fixed by the court may not take advantage of not paying the rent and thereby causing harass ment to landlord. It is often found that defendants of the suit do not appear with purpose that an ex pane decree would be passed and then application for setting aside of the exparte decree would be made, there by prolonging that litigation. This proviso consequently protects the landlord from further harassment adn secures the pay ment of rent. Similarly Section 39 requires the tenant to pay admitted rent with interest at the rate of Rs. 9% on the first date of hearing to protect from being evicted. Such deposited are also a security to the amount of rent which has fallen due against the tenant. If the tenant is not made legally bound to make such deposits, he may drag the litigation to the longest period of his desire. Thus both the deposits made by the tenant axe the security to the interest of the landlord. 7. THE amount deposited under Sec tion 30(1) of the Act is payable to landlord on his application for withdrawal either during the pendency of the suit or after the final decision in his favour. By an ex pane decree the suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages deemed to have been decided in favour of the landlord, so if the ex pane decree is not set aside the landlord would be entitled to receive such deposits made under Section 30(1) of Act No. 13 of 1972 to the satisfaction of the decree. On this analogy if the application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC fails, the landlord would have right to withdraw the money deposited as above and proceed to execute the decree for recovery of rest of the decretal amount. THErefore, I am of the view that the money deposited under Section 30(1) is adjustable in the compliance of the proviso to Section 17(1) of the Judge Small Causes Court Act. So even if the deposit of Rs. 1044/- beyond the period of limitation, the application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC cannot be rejected because the money, which has already been deposited by the petitioner, is adjustable. Both the courts below have, therefore, com mitted an error in rejecting the application on the aforementioned grounds. 8. In the result, the petitioner succeeds and is allowed and the orders of the court below dated 29-7- 1987 and 4-9-87 are set aside. THE application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC is allowed and the Judge Small Causes Court will proceed in accordance with law. Petition allowed.;