IMPORTANT POINT
In a suit filed before Court of Small Causes the date fixed for filing written statement is not first hearing of suit. The first hearing of suit would mean the date on which the Court proposes to apply its mind.

Headnote:U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Section 20(2)(a) r/w 20(4)-Bar of suit for eviction of tenant on ground of non-payment if tenant paid rent on the first hearing of suit-Meaning of first hearing-Summons served by Court of Small Causes-Tenant appeared on 20.5.1980, sought time to file W.S.-On next date after adjournment suit posted for final hearing on 10-10-1980-Tenant deposited entire amount on 10-10-1980 in Court-Whether the tenant paid the rent at the first hearing of the suit within the meaning of Section 20(4) of the Act? (Yes) (CPC 1908-Order 5 Rules 1 and 3) (Order XV Rule 5)-Appeal allowed-Case law discussed.
       Held : "Even though issues are not required to be framed and the date is fixed for the purpose of final hearing of the suit filed before the Small Cause Court but for the purpose of such suit also, first hearing of the suit would mean the date on which the Court proposes to apply its mind i.e. the date fixed for final hearing of the suit and it cannot be the date fixed for filing the written statement." (Para 10)
       Now adverting to the facts of the case on hand it has been noticed above that the suit was posted on May 20, 1980 for final disposal but that date cannot be treated as the first hearing of the suit as the Court granted time till July 25, 1980 to the tenant for filing written statement. On July 25, 1980 time was extended for filing written statement and the suit was again adjourned for final disposal to October 10, 1980. Inasmuch as after giving due opportunity to file written statement the suit was posted for final disposal on October 10, 1980 it was that date which ought to be considered as the date fixed by the Court for application of its mind to the facts of this case to identify the controversy between the parties and as such the date of first hearing of the suit. Admittedly, on that date the appellant-tenant deposited all the arrears of rent. Though, the suit was again adjourned to December 5, 1980, it would be irrelevant because the date of first hearing of the suit is the date when the court proposes to apply its mind and not the date when it actually applies its mind. It follows that the first hearing of the suit would not change on every adjournment of the suit for final disposal. The effective date of the first hearing of the suit on which the Court proposed to apply its mind, on the facts of the case, was October 10, 1980, as stated above. The amount of arrears of rent having been paid on that date, there is compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act so the tenant is entitled to the benefit of the said provision. In this view of the matter we are unable to sustain the order under challenge. The impugned order of the High Court upholding the order of the IV Additional District Judge which confirmed the order of the learned Trial Judge, is set aside. The suit of the respondents-landlords shall stand dismissed. The appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. (Paras 12 and 13)

JUDGMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-Leave is granted.

2. This appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 10594 of 1985 made on August 3, 2001.

3. A summary of facts leading to filing of this appeal may be noted to appreciate the controversy in this appeal. The dispute arises under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the U.P. Act ). The appellants and the 3rd respondent are legal representatives of the tenant late Jai Prakash who died after institution of the suit (hereinafter referred to as the tenant ) and Respondents 1 and 2 are the landlords (hereinafter referred to as the landlords ) of Shop No. 279, Main Bazar, Ward No. 9, Murad Nagar consisting of four chambers out of which two were covered with roof and two at the back without roof and saiban (for short, the suit building ). They purchased it from late Gopi Chand, the previous landlord. The suit building was let out to the said Jai Prakash on a monthly rent of Rs. 37.50. Alleging that the rent for the months of May, June and July, 1976 was not paid, the landlords sent a notice of demand for arrears of rent on March 30, 1977. In 1979, they filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, against the said Jai Prakash for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for the period from May 27, 1976 to February 22, 1978 and his ejectment from the suit building in the Small Cause Court, Ghaziabad. After service of summons the suit was adjourned to May 20, 1980 for final disposal. On that day the tenant sought time for filing written statement so the suit was adjourned to July 25, 1980 when time was, however, extended for filing written statement and the suit was posted for final disposal on October 10, 1980. The hearing of the suit was not taken up on that date as the Presiding Officer was on judicial training but the tenant deposited the entire amount in demand. Eventually, the suit was again adjourned to December 5, 1980. The tenant contested the suit alleging that the landlords refused to receive the rent and pleaded that as he had deposited the arrears of rent at the first hearing of the suit, in view of the provisions of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act, the suit has to be dismissed.

4. The learned Trial Judge took the view that the first date of hearing of the suit was May 20, 1980 when the tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent, he, therefore, decreed the suit on January 6, 1984. The tenant carried the matter in revision before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. Affirming the order of the learned trial Judge the revision was ultimately dismissed on May 20, 1985. The tenant then challenged the validity of the said order of the learned IV Additional District Judge in the aforementioned writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was also dismissed on August 3, 2001, upholding the order impugned therein. Against that order of the High Court the tenant is in appeal before us.

5. In the light of the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties the ticklish question that arises for consideration is : whether the tenant paid the rent at the first hearing of the suit within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act.

6. It may be mentioned that Section 20 of the U.P. Act bars a suit for eviction of a tenant except on the grounds specified in sub-section (2) thereof. The first ground, mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2), is that a tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand. The rigour of this permissible ground for eviction of tenant is substantially whittled down by sub-section (4) of Section 20 which is in the following terms :

"20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds.-

(1) to (3) *** *** *** ***

(4) In any suit for eviction on the ground me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 664

IMPORTANT POINTIn a suit filed before Court of Small Causes the date fixed for filing written statement is not first hearing of suit. The first hearing of suit would mean the date on which the Court proposes to apply its mind.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
In a suit filed before Court of Small Causes the date fixed for filing written statement is not first hearing of suit. The first hearing of suit would mean the date on which the Court proposes to apply its mind.