IMPORTANT POINT
All the dues and amounts liable to be paid u/s 20(4) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation, Letting and Eviction) Act, have undoubtedly to be paid or deposited on the date of first hearing but within that framework virtual and substantial compliance may suffice without sticking to mere technicalities of law.

Headnote:(i) U.P. Urban Building (Regulation, Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972-Section 20(4)-Arrears of rent-Deposit of -Meaning of date of first hearing - It is the date on which Court applies its mind to facts and controversy involved in the case-Any date fixed for hearing of case would be the first date for the purpose-In case where Court itself is not available it could not be treated as date of first hearing.
       Held : The suit was filed on 5.12.1988, on which date the order for issue of summons seems to have been passed fixing 19.1.1989 for filing of the written statement and 27.1.1989 for hearing. Initially, it transpires that the defendant was not served, and ultimately order was passed for service of notice on defendant by publication fixing 3.7. 1989 for hearing. It however, appears that by mistake in the publication, the date of hearing was shown as 26.4.1989 instead of 3.7.1989. It may however not detain us since nothing would turn upon it as 26.4.1989 was the date published and it was therefore taken as the date of first hearing. The Order-Sheet further shows that on 26.4.1989 the Presiding Officer was not available having proceeded for training. The case was adjourned to 11.5.1989. Thereafter also the case only seems to have been adjourned due to one reason or the other e.g. lawyer s strike etc. and later on after furnishing copy of the plaint, dates were again fixed for filing of written statement and for hearing. In the meantime, it appears that the tenant-defendant had gained knowledge of the proceedings and made a deposit of the amount of arrears of rent etc. on 11.2.1989. (Para 6)
       The amount deposited even before the date of first hearing amounts to sufficient compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. Such observations have also be made in the decisions of this Court as referred to earlier namely; Ved Prakash Wadhwa and Sudarshan Devi (supra). It is thus clear that all the dues of arrears of rent as well as other amounts liable to be deposited under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act had been duly deposited by 11.5.1989. There has been thus sufficient compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. The High Court and the Courts below erred in treating 26.4.1989 as the date of first hearing. (Para 8)
       (ii) U.P. Urban Building (Regulation, Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972-Section 20(4)-Arrears of rent-Deposit of -No requirement of depositing electricity charges-Tenant depositing a sum of Rs. 358/- also as electricity charges -Failure to deposit a sum of Rs.375/- on account of fee of lawyer-Amount of electricity charges could be adjusted or treated as against lawyer s fee- Minor deficiency of Rs. 17/- only against total amount deposited would be inconsequential.
       Held : Under sub-section (4) of Section 20 arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation, interest, costs of litigation is required to be deposited. There is no requirement of depositing any other amount or electricity charges. Admittedly, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 358/- also as electricity charges. The amount on account of fee of the lawyer was a sum of Rs. 375/-. The amount of electricity charges could well be adjusted or treated to be as against lawyer s fee. A minor deficiency of Rs.17/- only against the total amount deposited near about six thousand or around that would be inconsequential and insignificant to defeat the purpose of enacting the relevant provisions as contained in sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. It would only be a hyper technical view of the matter which would in no way serve the ends of justice even where virtually and substantially requirement of the legal provision is stands satisfied. (Para 9)
       After the suit was filed the tenant was too willing and ready to clear all the dues so much so that he did it before the first date of hearing and made subsequent deposits as well to make it up to date. We feel that the whole purpose of enacting sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act is to do substantial justice between he parties. It covers those cases alone where the ground for eviction is default in payment of rent still the Legislature intended to provide an opportunity to a tenant for payment of rent. On availing of such an opportunity, equities between the parties are levelled as the landlord gets the amounts of arrears of rent and damages along with legal expenses and interest on the defaulted amount and the tenant is saved of liability of being thrown out of the premises. While considering the import of such provisions, it may have to be seen that the requirement of law is substantially and virtually stands satisfied. A highly technical view of the matter will have no place in construing compliance of such a provision. We may however, hasten to add that it is not intended to lay down that non compliance of any of the requirements of the provision in question is permissible. All the dues and amounts liable to be paid have undoubtedly to be paid or deposited on the date of first hearing but within that framework virtual and substantial compliance may suffice without sticking to mere technicalities of law. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-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 Section 20(4) on the UP Urban Building (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 Section 20 of the Act which reads as under:

(4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if at 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 percent 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 (I) 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.

.....................

(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.

4. 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 defense of the tenant has been struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. The only question that remains for consideration is about compliance of Section 20(4) of the Act.

5. So far the question as to the meaning of the date of first hearing is concerned, the position stands well settled that it is the date on which the Court applies its mind to the facts and controversy involved in the case Any date prior to such a date would not be date of first hearing. For instance date for framing of issues would be the date of first hearing when the Court is to apply its mind to the facts of case. As it relates to proceedings under the Small Cause Courts Act, there being no provision for framing of issues any date fixed for hearing of the case would be the first date for the purpose. The above stated position is clear from a catena of cases of the Allahabad High Court and some decisions of this Court also. In Ved Prakash Wadhwa vs. Vishwa Mohan, AIR 1982 SC 816 this Court held that the date of first hearing would not be before a date fixed for preliminary examination of parties and framing of issues. It has further been held that if the amount is deposited before the date of first hearing, it would amount to compliance with the relevant provision of the Act. In Sudarshan Devi & Anr. vs. Sushila Devi & Anr., 1999(8) SCC 31, the service of notice was by publication, hence tenant applied for copy of the plaint which was furnished and fresh dates for filing WS and hearing was fixed. The Court considered the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 229

Cases Referred (3)