http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SUBHASH CHAND JAIN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGESAHARANPUR AND OTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/02/1989

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) DUTT, M.M. (J) KANIA, M.H.

CITATION:  1989 AIR 1070            1989 SCR  (1) 837  1989 SCC  (2) 110        JT 1989 (1)   408  1989 SCALE  (1)483

ACT:     U.P.  Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,  Rent  and Eviction) Act, 1972--S.20(4)--Tenant’s right to claim relief against eviction on payment of entire arrears of rent on  or before  the  first date of  hearing--Requirement  of  strict compliance.

HEADNOTE:     Respondent-owners’ suit for recovery of arrears of  rent was  decreed  ex-parte when the appellant-tenant  failed  to appear  in  the suit; however, on a  subsequent  application made  by  him  the decree was set aside  on  24.3.1977.  The appellant  made a deposit of Rs.2,912 on  30.5.1977  stating that  the  said date was the first date of  hearing  in  the suit.  The appellant, who had first stated that he  was  not obliged to deposit the entire arrears as they were barred by time,  later  on prayed for amendment of his  pleadings  and sought to deposit the time-barred arrears on 29.9.1977,  but the  deposit was actually made on 1.10.1977. The  Court  al- lowed  the prayer for amendment but the Additional  District Judge held that the appellant was liable to be evicted  from the  premises  since  he had failed to  deposit  the  entire arrears  on or before 30.8.1977 which was the date of  first hearing  in the suit in terms of s. 20(4) of the U.P.  Urban Buildings  (Regulation of Letting, Rent and  Eviction)  Act, 1972.  The appellant’s writ petition challenging the  afore- said finding was dismissed by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal,     HELD:  As  the suit was in the nature of a  small  cause suit, and as the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act did  not contemplate  the  fixation  of any date  for  settlement  of issues,  it  must be taken that 30.8.1977 was  the  date  of first hearing in the suit, and inasmuch as the entire amount due  as arrears of rent had not been deposited within  time, the  High Court was right in dismissing the  Writ  Petition. [839D]

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

   CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1728  of 1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.1982 of the Allahabad 838 High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6324 of 1980.     R.K. Garg, M.K.D. Namboodiri and S. Balakrishnan for the Appellant. S.N. Kaicker, Pradeep Kumar Jain for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, CJ Special leave granted.     This  tenant’s appeal by special leave arises out  of  a suit  for  ejectment  and recovery of arrears  of  rent  and damages.     The suit was brought by the respondents who claimed that a shop owned by them had been let to the appellant, that the appellant  had  fallen in arrears of rent from  1  February, 1968 and had not paid the arrears, notwithstanding a  notice of demand dated 8 January, 1975 served on the appellant. The suit was decreed ex parte by the Trial Court and the  decree was set aside by the first Appellate Court. In writ Petition before the High Court, it was urged on behalf of the  appel- lant  that the appellant had deposited the arrears  of  rent under  sub-s.  (4)  of s. 20 of  the  U.P.  Urban  Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, and that therefore the Court should have made an order relieving  the appellant  against his liability for eviction on the  ground of  arrears of rent. The High Court noted that the suit  was filed  on  12 February, 1975 and as the  appellant  did  not appear  on 4 April, 1975, the day fixed in the summons,  the suit proceeded ex parte and was decreed. The High Court also noticed that upon subsequent application made by the  appel- lant  the ex parte decree was set aside on 24  March,  1977, and on 30 May, 1977, the fresh date now fixed, the appellant made  a  deposit of Rs.2,912 accompanied by  an  application stating that the said date was the first date of hearing and he  was making a deposit of the entire arrears of rent.  The appellant  first stated that he was not obliged  to  deposit the  entire  arrears of rent as they were  barred  by  time. However,  the appellant prayed for amendment of  his  plead- ings. On 29 September, 1977, the appellant sought to deposit the  time barred arrears also and got the tender passed  for that  purpose.  In pursuance of the tender  the  amount  was deposited on 1 October, 1977. The amendment application  was allowed,  but when the matter came before the learned  First Additional District Judge, he took the view that the  appel- lant had failed to comply with the conditions of sub-s.  (4) of s. 20 of the Act. He held that 30 August, 1977 was 839 the date of first hearing in the suit within the meaning  of sub-s.  (4) of s. 20. He recorded that the parties  did  not dispute that the time barred arrears claimed by the respond- ents were also required to be deposited under sub-s. (4)  of s. 20. As the time barred arrears had been deposited by  the appellant  on 1 October, 1977 only, the High Court took  the view that the entire arrears of rent had not been  deposited on  or  before  the date of first hearing.  The  High  Court declined to go into the further question whether the  depos- its made by the appellant on 1 October, 1977 ought to relate back  to  29 September, 1977. In the result the  High  Court dismissed the Writ Petition.     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we see no reason to take a different view from that adopted by  the High Court. The High Court was plainly right in holding that 30  August, 1977 was the date of first hearing in the  suit. As the suit was in the nature of a small cause suit, and  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the  Provincial Small Causes Courts Act did not  contemplate the  fixation of any date for settlement of issues, it  must be taken that 30 August, 1977 was the date of first  hearing in  the suit, and inasmuch as the entire amount due  as  ar- rears  of rent had not been deposited within time, the  High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed but there As no order as to costs. H.L.C.                                         Appeal   dis- missed. 840