1. Suit for eviction due to rent default under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — dispute over date of first hearing. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 498
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE S.C. AGRAWAL AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
ADVAITA NAND
Versus
JUDGE, SMALL CAUSE COURT, MEERUT AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal No. 4166 of 1995{From the Judgment and Order dated 7-7-1994 of the Allahabad High Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 20672 of 1994}
Decided on 4-4-1995
Advocates appeared:
R.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate (Ms Sandhya Goswami and M.P.S. Tomar, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant;
Satish Chandra, Senior Advocate (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Advocate, with him) for the Respondents.
Important Points
Under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 'first hearing' refers to the date the court applies its mind to determine points in controversy and frame issues (or the final hearing date in Small Cause Courts), rather than the date fixed for filing the written statement.
Subject
Eviction - Protection from Eviction
Act Referred
Headnote
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 20(4) – Tenant - Suit for Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - Appeal by tenant arises out of a suit for eviction filed by Respondent 3 on the ground of default in payment of rent - Suit was filed in the court of Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut Summons were issued fixing 20-3-1990 as the date for filing the written statement and 28-3-1990 was the date fixed for final hearing of the case in court - It appears that copy of plaint was not annexed with the summons served on appellant - Appellant, therefore, moved an application before the court on 28-3-1990 praying for supply of copy of the plaint. The said copy was supplied to the appellant itself and on that day the court passed an order directing that written statement be filed within one month was fixed as the date for final hearing of case – Held, When time is fixed by the court for the filing of written statement and the hearing, these dates bind the defendant, regardless of the service of the summons and that the compliance with provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act must be judged upon the basis of the dates so fixed. The said observations cannot be construed to mean that court has approved the said decision insofar it holds that compliance with provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act was required to be made within the period of one month allowed by the court for the filing of the written statement - We are unable to agree with the High Court that appellant was not entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the Act. In our opinion, the protection of the said section must be extended to the appellant and if so extended the decree for eviction could not be passed against him - Appeal allowed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
JITENDRA SHARMA, M.P.S.TOMAR, R.K.SHUKLA, SANDHYA GOSVAMI, SATISH CHANDRA AGRAWAL
JITENDRA SHARMA, M.P.S.TOMAR, R.K.SHUKLA, SANDHYA GOSVAMI, SATISH CHANDRA AGRAWAL
Table of Contents
2. Whether the date for filing a written statement or the date mentioned in the summons constitutes the first hearing for rent deposit under Section 20(4). (Para 6 , 8 )
3. The first hearing is the date the court applies its mind to determine points in controversy, regardless of whether issues are formally framed. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 )
4. Under Section 20(4) of the Act, first hearing means the date the court applies its mind to determine controversy, not the date for filing written statements. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — eviction decree set aside — tenant granted protection under Section 20(4) of the Act. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. What constitutes the first hearing of a suit for the purpose of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act?
The first hearing is the date on which the court proposes to apply its mind to determine the points in controversy between the parties to the suit and to frame issues, if necessary. (Para 5 , 7 )
7. Does the date fixed for filing a written statement in the summons constitute the first hearing?
No. The step of filing a written statement, even if mentioned in the summons, does not constitute the first hearing, as the Code of Civil Procedure allows filing thereafter but prior to the first hearing. (Para 5 , 7 )
8. How is the first hearing determined in suits before a Small Cause Court where issues are not formally framed?
In Small Cause Court proceedings, the first hearing is the date fixed for the final hearing of the suit, as that is when the court proposes to apply its mind to the case. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT
S.C. AGRAWAL, J.-Leave granted.
2. This appeal by the tenant arises out of a suit for eviction filed by Respondent 3 on the ground of default in payment of rent under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said suit was filed in the court of Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut on 9-1-1990. Summons were issued fixing 20-3-1990 as the date for filing the written statement and 28-3-1990 was the date fixed for final hearing of the case in the court. It appears that the copy of the plaint was not annexed with the summons served on the appellant. The appellant, therefore, moved an application before the court on 28-3-1990 praying for supply of copy of the plaint. The said copy was supplied to the appellant on 28-3-1990 itself and on that day the court passed an order directing that the written statement be filed within one month and 24-7-1990 was fixed as the date for final hearing of the case. On 2-5-1990 the appellant deposited the entire amount of rent that was due and claimed protection from eviction under Section 20(4) of the Act. The Judge, Small Cause Court, however, held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act because the date of first hearing was 27-4-1990 and the arrears of rent were deposited on 2-5-1990 i.e. after 27-4-1990. By his judgment dated 14-10-1993, the Judge, Small Cause Court, therefore, decreed the suit and passed an order for ejectment against the appellant. The revision petition filed by the appellant against the said decree was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut by judgment dated 24-5-1994 and the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court by judgment dated 7-7-1994. Hence this appeal.
3. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to avail the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The said provision, as amended by U.P. Act 28 of 1976, provides as follows :
"20. (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 per cent per annum and the landlords costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) 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 :
* * *
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section-
(a) the expression first hearing means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant;"
4. The Explanation was inserted in Section 20(4) by the Amendment Act of 1976. Dealing with the provisions of Section 20(4), as they stood prior to the amendment of 1976, this Court in Ved Prakash Wadhwa v. Vishwa Mohan{(1981) 3 SCC 667} construing the expression "first hearing of the suit" has held: (SCC p. 668, para 3)
"We may however add that the expression at the first hearing of the suit is also to be found in Order 10, Rule 1, Order 14, Rule 1(5) and Order 15, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions indicate that the first hearing of the suit can never be earlier than the date fixed for the preliminary examination of the parties (Order 10, Rule 1) and the settlement of issues [Order 14, Rule 1(5)]."
5. The provisions of Section 20(4), as amended by the Amendment Act of 1976, whereby the Explanation was inserted in Section 20(4), were considered by this Court in Siraj Ahmad Siddiqul v. Prem Nath Kapoor{(1993) 4 SCC 406} wherein it has been held : (
