KAILASH WATI Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE BUDAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 3 Ram Charan Lal filed SCC Suit No. 6/82 against the petitioner before J. S. C/c. J. , Budaun, J. S. C. C. decided the suit on 4-12-1982. The operative portion translated in English reads as follows: "plaintiff has filed suit for eviction of defendant from the property in dispute suit is decreed for recovery of Rs. 2445/- as rent and Rs. 25/- as damages for use and occupation. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future from the defendant at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month on payment of required Court fee. The amount deposited by the defendant in the suit shall be adjusted from the above-mentioned decreetal amount. "

(2.) IN the operative portion it was not clearly mentioned that the suit was decreed for eviction also. An order was passed by this Court on 3-4-1985 recording statement of learned Counsel for respondent- landlord that decree prepared by the office of J. S. C. C. did not mention the amount of cost correctly and respondent-landlord proposed to move an amendment application under Section 152, C. P. C. for amending the decree. It was directed through the said order that if amendment application was filed within a week then the same should be decided by trial Court within a month. Even though twenty years have passed since then still nothing has been brought on the record to show that any amendment application was filed. On 29-1-2004 I directed learned Counsel for landlord-respondent (who had been engaged subsequently) to intimate the Court regarding compliance of the order 3-4-1985. No intimation was given by the learned Counsel for respondents and today when the case was called out in the revised list no one appeared for the landlord-respondent.

(3.) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in Man Chand Pal v. Shanti Agarwal, AIR 2002 SC 955, that minor deficiency in deposit under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13/72 shall be ignored. In my opinion, therefore, deficiency of about Rs. 50/- out of the requirement of about Rs. 4,500/- may be termed to be negligent. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgments, decree and order passed by the Courts below are set aside. Suit of the plaintiff for eviction is dismissed.