- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. At the time of hearing no one appeared for the respondent No. 2 tenant, hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner-landlord were heard.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition. Landlord filed S. C. C. Suit No. 24 of 1987 against tenant respondent No. 2, Uma Dutta Chaturvedi for eviction on the ground of default and recovery of arrears of rent. Suit was decreed by J. S. C. C. /civil Judge, Kanpur Dehat through judgment and decree dated 20. 10. 1992. Against the said judgment and decree, tenant respondent No. 2 filed S. C. C. Revision No. 4 of 1992. Vth A. D. J. , Kanpur Dehat allowed the revision on 27. 10. 1997, set aside the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court by granting benefit of section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to the tenant. However, Revisional Court permitted the landlord to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant. THIS writ petition is directed against aforesaid Revisional Court's judgment and or der. Property in dispute is a house situate on the ground floor, consisting of two big rooms, verandah, three small rooms and Angan, rent of which is Rs. 35/- per month. Tenant pleaded that petitioner was not the only landlord as house be longed to his father and after father's death, petitioner and his brother and sister also inherited the ownership. Trial Court held that suit was maintain able, however Revisional Court reversed the said point also. Revisional Court held that Kumari Kamini was also co-landlrod owner, hence notice as well as suit were bad as Kumari Kamini did not join with the petitioner in the notice and the suit. This view of the Revisional Court is utterly erroneous in law. Supreme Court in India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. M/s. V. Bhagagabandei Agarwalla 2004 (55) ALR 98 (SC)=2004 (14) AIC 80, and Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, 2006 (63) ALR 506 (SC)=2006 (41) AIC 129 (SC) has held that even one of the owners can institute suit for eviction against tenant and he need not show the consent of the other owners Kumari Kamini at no point of time stated that she did not support her brother, plaintiff in giving the notice and filing the suit.
(3.) AS far as question of benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act is concerned, the following dates are relevant. Suit was filed on 24. 12. 1987. Summons were issued fixing 15. 2. 1988. On 29. 3. 1988, defendant filed application for supplying copy of the plaint. Similar applications were subsequently also filed by the tenant. On 2. 7. 1988, the suit was dismissed in default and was restored on 2. 3. 1990. Thereafter, an order was passed that written statement should be filed by 27. 4. 1990. On 28. 4. 1990, tenant sought one month's time to file written statement. Revisional Court held that as time for filing written statement was sought on 28. 4. 1990 and no complaint was made regarding non-receipt of copy of plaint, hence, it would be assumed that by that date, tenant had got the copy of the plaint. Further time to file written statement was sought on 28. 5. 1990, which was granted. Ultimately, written statement was filed on 13. 9. 1990, which was taken on record and there after 16. 10. 1990 was fixed for final hearing. The Trial Court has categorically held that deposit was made on 13. 9. 1990 (under issue No. 3, Trial Court has mentioned that Rs. 3,200/- was deposited ). On 16. 10. 1990, an order was passed to the effect that parties should give their evidence on 22. 11. 1990. As tenant had deposited the entire required amount before the said date, hence he was entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act. Section 20 (4) of the Act is quoted below : "20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds.- (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in Clause (a) of sub section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in Court the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting there from any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of section 30, 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: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise ac quired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residen tial building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section : (a) the expression 'first hearing' means the first date for any step or pro ceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant; (b) the expression 'cost of the suit' includes one-half of the amount of Counsel's fee taxable for a contested suit. ";