- (1.) J. C. Gupt, J. Heard petitioner's Counsel.
(2.) THIS is tenant's petition against the decree of ejectment passed against him. Suit for ejectment was filed on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The plaintiff claimed rent @ Rs. 2001- per month and according to him the petitioner was in arrears of rent since 1-11-1992 which he did not pay despite service of notice of demand. After termination the tenancy, suit was filed and the defence of the tenant was that he had paid rent upto March, 1995. Rate of rent was, however, admitted. The trial Court recorded the finding of fact that the tenant was in ar rears of rent Since 1-11-1992. The tenant further claimed before the trial Court, the benefit of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. XVII of 1932. The finding of the trial Court was to the effect that benefit of that provision could not be extended to the petitioner as the amount deposited by him was short from the amount which ought to have been deposited as per the provisions of the aforesaid sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. Revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid decree has also been dismissed. The revisional Court has gone into the question whether or not the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act could be extended to the petitioner and after ex amining the fact it also concurred with the finding of the trial Court that the amount deposited under Section 20 (4) was short and, therefore, both the Courts below have refused to extend the benefit of Section 20 (. 4) of the Act to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court that there was a shortage in the amount of interest which occurred on account of mistake committed by the petitioner's Counsel while calculating the interest. Assuming this argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to be correct, still the amount deposited in Court under Section 20 (4) of the Act was short. Section 20 of the Act create a bar that no suit shall be instituted for the evic tion of the tenant from a building save as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 20. Section 20 (2) provides the grounds on which a suit for eviction can be filed. Clause (a) of the said sub-section provides that a suit for eviction against the tenant from a building after the termination of his tenancy may be instituted on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than 4 months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service of notice of demand upon him. If this ground exists, the bar created by sub-section (1) for filing the suit for eviction gets removed and on proof of the fact that there has been a default in payment of rent by the tenant, he becomes liable to eviction. However, the law makers provided a further protection to the tenant by enacting sub-section (4) which runs as under: "20. (4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2), of at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord 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 costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom 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 other wise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. "
(3.) THE idea behind enacting sub-sec tion (4) is to protect a honest tenant from eviction on his depositing the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit. Though sub-section (4) of Section 20 has been enacted for the advantage of a tenant and should be construed liberally in his favour, but howsoever liberal ap proach may be the express provision con tained in a statute cannot be ignored. It is, therefore, for the tenant to satisfy the Court that the conditions laid down there in have been complied with. If he fails to do so, he cannot get the benefit conferred by it. When a benefit is concerned on a person or class of persons by a Statute subject to certain conditions unless those conditions are satisfied, no advantage can be availed of that beneficial enactment. Equity cannot in such cases operate to annual a Statute.;