MAN CHAND PAL Vs. SHANTI AGARWAL
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-118
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
February 14,2002
MAM CHAND PAL
Appellant
VERSUS
SHANTI AGARWAL
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DR. NEELAMBAR JHA V. FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,GORAKHPUR AND OTHERS [REFERRED]VED PRAKASH WADHWA VS. VISHWA MOHAN [REFERRED]
ADVAITA NAND VS. JUDGE SMALL CAUSE COURT MEERUT [REFERRED]
SUDERSHAN DEVI VS. SUSHILA DEVI [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
SIDDHESHWARI DIXIT AND ANR VS. HASINA BEGUM AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-40] [REFERRED TO]SULTAN AHMAD VS. 1ST A.D.J., BIJNOR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-333] [REFERRED TO]
OM WATI GAUR VS. JITENDRA KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2002-10-104] [REFERRED TO]
DHANRAJ & ORS VS. BHEEM SINGH & ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-8-239] [REFERRED]
SURESH CHANDRA VS. RADHEY SHYAM AGRAWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-150] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL VS. SANTOSH KAPOOR [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-172] [REFERRED TO]
JAI RAM DASS VS. IIND A D J JHANSI [LAWS(ALL)-2004-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA VS. AJIT KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-226] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. SALIM @ KALLU VS. DR. LIYAKAT HUSAIN [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-227] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. NANDRANI AND OTHERS VS. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-234] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAIN TIWARI VS. PT. NEELKANTH TRUST [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-324] [REFERRED TO]
SADHANA FOUNDATION VS. ESPIRE INFOLABS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(P&H)-2017-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. MANOHARLAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
AJAI AGARWAL VS. HAR GOVIND PRASAD SINGHAL [LAWS(SC)-2005-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA PURWAR VS. DISTRICT JUDGE MAHOBA [LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
AWADH BIHARI TRIPATHI VS. SHANTI DEVI SHUKLA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ BHAN VS. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2012-12-78] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ BHAN VS. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2012-12-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA RAM VS. SAROJ BALA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA VS. XIVTH A D J [LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
ARTI SITARAM NAIK VS. SOCIADADE VERLEKAR AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-7-196] [REFERRED]
SURAJ BHAN & 8 OTHERS VS. DINESH KUMAR GUPTA & 5 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-182] [REFERRED]
SMT. KALAWATI VS. DEEN DAYAL SHARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-165] [REFERRED TO]
LAL BAHADUR VS. ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-322] [REFERRED TO]
LALITA DEVI (SMT.) VS. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VARANASI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2008-8-402] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN LAL VS. SHRI JANKI VALLABH JI MAHARAJ VIRAJMAN MANDIR QASBA BISAULI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-317] [REFERRED TO]
RAN SINGH VS. BALRAJ [LAWS(P&H)-2002-8-60] [REFERRED TO]
NEELAM SHARMA VS. KARAM SINGH WALIA [LAWS(UTN)-2016-11-102] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
BIR SINGH NEGI (SH.) VS. SMT. SHASHI THAPLIYAL [LAWS(UTN)-2004-9-70] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. HARI SINGH YADAV [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA SHARMA AND ANOTHER VS. DR. AMIT BANSAL [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
CHITRANJAN SINGH VS. SAMARPAL SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2011-12-70] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHANDRA VS. ASHWANI KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-138] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR IQBAL SINGH VS. KM. SARSWATI DEVI VARSHANEY [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-461] [REFERRED TO]
NORTHERN INDI TEXTILES RESEARCH ASSOCIATION VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(ALL)-2009-2-108] [REFERRED TO]
SANT VIJAY SINGH VS. IST A D J [LAWS(ALL)-2005-3-213] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. ANIL KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-220] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. ANAND PARKASH GOEL [LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-59] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. MANOHAR LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2017-2-297] [REFERRED TO]
KHUBI RAM ALIAS AZAD MANTOO VS. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AZAMGARH [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-146] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI DEVI VS. DEVI PRASAD GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2004-8-286] [REFERRED TO]
MELA RAM VS. ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2014-2-256] [REFERRED TO]
S.RAVIS VS. JUDGE SMALL CAUSE COURTS [LAWS(ALL)-2012-11-93] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Brijesh Kumar, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main question involved and canvassed before us in this case is, as to whether or not the tenant-appellant had deposited the arrears of rent along with other amounts payable, in terms of S. 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation, Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act') on the date of first hearing so as to be absolved of the liability of eviction. It also leads to consideration of the question as to what is the meaning of the date of first hearing as envisaged under sub-section (4) of S. 20 of the Act which reads as under : (4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in Cl. (a) of sub-section (2), if a 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 therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of S. 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.
**********
**********
(a) the expression "first hearing" means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant.
(3.)The appellant is the tenant of the respondent-landlady, in respect of a shop in the city of Meerut at a rent of Rs. 128.70 paise per month. According to the landlady the tenant failed to pay the rent since 1-10-1986, despite notice. Hence she filed a suit in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, Meerut being Small Cause Suit No. 290 of 1988 for arrears of rent etc. and eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The defendant denied the allegations about default in payment of rent or that any other amount on account of electricity charges or otherwise was payable by him. It has also been the case of the tenant that the husband of the plaintiff had received the rent and had even issued a receipt on 4-11-1986. All these points and other pleas raised however, are not relevant, since defence of the tenant has been struck off under O. 15, R. 5, C.P.C. The only question that remains for consideration is about compliance of S. 20(4) of the Act.
(2.)Heard learned counsel for the parties. The main question involved and canvassed before us in this case is, as to whether or not the tenant-appellant had deposited the arrears of rent along with other amounts payable, in terms of S. 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation, Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act') on the date of first hearing so as to be absolved of the liability of eviction. It also leads to consideration of the question as to what is the meaning of the date of first hearing as envisaged under sub-section (4) of S. 20 of the Act which reads as under : (4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in Cl. (a) of sub-section (2), if a 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 therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of S. 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.
**********
**********
(a) the expression "first hearing" means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant.
(3.)The appellant is the tenant of the respondent-landlady, in respect of a shop in the city of Meerut at a rent of Rs. 128.70 paise per month. According to the landlady the tenant failed to pay the rent since 1-10-1986, despite notice. Hence she filed a suit in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, Meerut being Small Cause Suit No. 290 of 1988 for arrears of rent etc. and eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The defendant denied the allegations about default in payment of rent or that any other amount on account of electricity charges or otherwise was payable by him. It has also been the case of the tenant that the husband of the plaintiff had received the rent and had even issued a receipt on 4-11-1986. All these points and other pleas raised however, are not relevant, since defence of the tenant has been struck off under O. 15, R. 5, C.P.C. The only question that remains for consideration is about compliance of S. 20(4) of the Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.