Important Point
The date of first hearing of the suit accuring is Section 20(4) of the U.P. urban Rent control Act would not be the date fixed for filing the written statement but would be the ate proposed for hearing i.e. the date proposed for applying the Court’s mind to determine the points in controversy and to frame issues, if necessary.

Headnote:Uttar Pradesh urbar Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Section 20(4) (as it stands after 1976 amendment)-Evicition order on ground that tenant not deposited arreass of rent on ‘first hearing’ of cas-Meaning of terms ‘first hearing’-Date of first hearing of suit would not be the date fixed for filing the written statement but would be the date proposed for hearing i.e., the date proposed for applying the Court’s mind to determine the points in controversy and to frame issues if necessary-Due date is not the actual date when final hearing takes place-Due date is the date fixed in summons for final hearing.
       Held : Under Section 20(4) and the Explanation thereto the date of first hearing of the suit would not be the date fixed for filing the written statement but would be the ate proposed for hearing i.e. the date proposed for applying the Court’s mind to determine the points in controversy and to frame issues, if necessary. Though Section 20(4) uses the word “at”, the Explanation uses the word `for’. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant-appellants that the due date is the actual date when the final hearing takes place. The due date is the date fixed in the summons for final hearing. (Paras 25 & 29)
       Therefore the tenant was rightly ordered to be evicted. In the present case before us, the case being one tried by the Small Causes Court, the summons initially stated that the date for first hearing i.e. the date fixed for final hearing would be 22.2.90. All the three courts below, therefore, held that the crucial date was 22.2.90 and there was clear default by 22.2.90. But, in our opinion, 22.2.90 would not be the due date. The summons were served in this case by the method of substituted service and it was common ground that the summons were not accompanied by the plaint. The tenant thefore filed an IA seeking a copy of the planit. That application was allowed and a fresh date for filing written statement and a fresh date for ‘first hearing’ were given. Ther fresh date for final hearing was 12.4.90. But the arrears were not deposited even by that date. It is also true that on 12.4.90. the Presiding Officer was on training but that, in our view, is not relevant in as much as there is no difficulty in depositing the rents etc. in the manner prescribed. (Paras 30 & 31)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The "first hearing" means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant (!) (!) . - The date of first hearing is the date on which the court proposes to apply its mind to determine points in controversy and frame issues, if necessary (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Under Section 20(4), the due date for deposit of arrears is the date fixed in the summons for final hearing, not the actual date of final hearing (!) (!) (!) . - Summons in Small Causes suits are for final disposal, and the defendant must be prepared to produce witnesses on that date (!) (!) . - The court confirmed the eviction decrees because the arrears were not deposited by the due date fixed in the summons (!) (!) (!) .

What is the meaning of "first hearing" in Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act?

How do the words "first hearing of the suit" in Section 20(4) read with the Explanation added by U.P. Act 28 of 1976 — do they mean the date for final disposal or the date the court proposes to apply its mind to determine points and frame issues?

What is the due date for deposit of rent arrears under Section 20(4) — is it the date fixed in the summons for final hearing or the actual date of final hearing?

Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-The appellants and the 2nd respondent are the legal representatives of the original tenant. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 1st February, 1994, dismissing the appellants’ writ petition bearing Civil Miscellaneous W.P. No. Nil of 1994 (Smt. Sudershan Malhotra & Ors. v. Addl. District Judge, Hardwar1). The 1st respondent under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13/72) (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) against the tenant. It was decreed by the trial Court on 27.3.1992 on the ground that the arrears of rent were not deposited on due date under Sections 20(4). Subsequently, the Small Causes Revision No. 12 of 1993 filed by the appellants was dismissed on 25.1.1994 by the revisional court. Later, the High Court dismissed the appellants’ writ petition. Thus, the decree for eviction was passed by the courts under Section 20(4) of the Act on the ground of non-deposit of the arrears of rent at the “the first hearing” of the case in the trial Court. The tenant’s legal representatives have come up in appeal.

2. The following are the relevant facts:

Late Sharvan Kumar Malhotra was the tenant of the 1st respondent in respect of D. No. 26/4, Civil Lines Hardwar Road, Roorkee, District Hardwar, (U.P.) from 1977 upon a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- (allegedly inclusive of house tax and water tax). On the ground of default in payment of rent for 33 months from 2.6. 1986 to 28.2.1989, the 1st respondent sent a notice dated 10.3.1989 to the tenant which notice was received by the tenant on or about 28.3.1989. The tenant sent a reply on 28.3.1989. The first respondent-landlady filed the present suit for eviction in 1989. The trial Court found that the rent was due for more than four months, that the tenant was liable only to pay rent of Rs. 70/- and not the house tax or water tax, that there was default in payment of rent for 33 months as contended by the first respondent, that the arrears of rent were not deposited at the ‘first hearing’ of the suit but were deposited long thereafter on 6.2.1992. The suit was therefore decreed for eviction under Section 20(4) of the Act and for arrears in a sum of Rs. 2310/-. The trial Court found, in that connection, that the ‘first hearing’ was on 22.2.90 as per the ‘substituted service’ taken out by the first respondent. On 22.2.90, the tenant did not deposit the rents and hence the tenant was liable to be evicted. This view was affirmed by the District Court and by the High Court, as stated earlier.

3. In as much as there was considerable debate before us as to whether the words “at the first hearing” meant the date to which the matter was listed for “first hearing” (as contended by the landlord-respondent) i.e. final hearing as this was a Small Cause suit, or whether it would be the date when the first hearing actually took place (as contended by the appellants-tenants). - it would be necessary to refer to the various events which took place after the suit for eviction was filed, in some detail.

4. No doubt the summons stated, this being a suit filed in the Small Causes Court, that the suit would be coming up for hearing on 22.2.90. But it must be noted that the service on the original tenant was by substituted service taken out by the first respondent. It appears that the substituted service did not comply with the requirement of serving a copy of the plaint. Therefore, on 22.2.90, the tenant filed an application for a copy of the plaint stating that the plaint was not made available since service was by ‘substituted service’. The suit and IA were adjourned for hearing for 12.4.90. On 12.4.90 the arrears were not deposited. But as the Presiding Officer was on training, the hearing was adjourned to 3.5.90, on which day the sritten statement was filed and parties were present. The matter was adjourned to 5.7.90 for hearing. On 5.7.90, parties were present and the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1128

What is the meaning of "first hearing" in Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act?

How do the words "first hearing of the suit" in Section 20(4) read with the Explanation added by U.P. Act 28 of 1976 — do they mean the date for final disposal or the date the court proposes to apply its mind to determine points and frame issues?

What is the due date for deposit of rent arrears under Section 20(4) — is it the date fixed in the summons for final hearing or the actual date of final hearing?

Cases Referred (5)