SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(All) 2293

[2006(1) ADJ 197 (All)(DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Division Bench)
BEFORE : DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DILIP GUPTA, JJ.
HAIDER ABBAS ........Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43734 of 2001,
decided on 30th November, 2005)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Manoj Kumar as Amicus Curiae.

Headnote:U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Sections 20 and 30—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order XV, Rule 5—Eviction suit against tenant—Striking off defence, for failure to deposit admitted rent, etc.—Expressions “entire amount admitted by him to be due” and “at or before the first hearing of suit” and “monthly amount due” and “throughout continuation of suit”—Meaning and interpretation of—Reference made on question for decision by a larger Bench that “Whether deposit made under Section 30(1), after date of service of summons of a civil suit, for arrears of rent, can be taken into consideration for computing deposit for purposes of deciding question whether defence should, or should not be struck off, under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C., 1908”, in view of conflicting decision in case of Basant Kumar Chauhan, Pawan Kumar in one side and on other side Habiburrahman and Ratan Bhushan Shukla—There was a substantial difference between deposit made in aforesaid two parts—Because under first Part, amount deposited under Section 30, can be deducted—Whereas under Second Part, there was no provision for deduction of said amount—Therefore, while depositing amount at or before first hearing of suit, tenant can deduct amount, deposited under Section 30—But deposit of monthly amount thereafter throughout continuation of suit, must be made in Court, where suit was filed, for eviction and recovery of rent or compensation for use and occupation—And amount, if any deposited under Section 30, cannot be deducted—Therefore, Reference answered accordingly. [Paras 12, 15, 21, 24, 25 and 35 to 38]

       

JUDGMENT

By the Court—A learned Judge of this Court after noticing that there was an apparent conflict in the view taken by this Court in Basant Kumar Chauhan v. VIIth ADJ, 1994 (1) ARC 107 and Pawan Kumar v. Ram Saran, 1999 (2) ACJ 1276 with that of the view taken by this Court in Habiburrahman v. District Judge & Ors., 2000 (1) ARC 4 and Ratan Bhushan Shukla v. ADJ, 1989 (2) ARC 54 has referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench :

“ Whether the deposit made under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 after the date of service of summons of a civil suit for arrears of rent can be taken into consideration for computing the deposit for the purpose of deciding the question whether the defence should or should not be struck off under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C.?”

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22nd March, 1999 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad by which the application filed by the landlord for striking off the defence of the petitioner-tenant was allowed and the order dated 22nd August, 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad by which the Revision filed by the tenant against the aforesaid order dated 22nd March, 1999 was dismissed.

3. The landlord-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed a suit on 3rd January, 1997 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes being Suit No. 1 of 1997 for giving vacant possession of the premises and for a decree for arrears of rent and cost of notice as the petitioner-tenant had committed default in payment of rent from March, 1994 and inspite of the notice dated 7th October, 1996 terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent, the tenant did not pay the arrears and nor did he vacate the premises. On 13th May, 1997 the Judge, Small Causes Court directed that the matter should proceed ex-parte but the tenant moved an application for recalling the aforesaid order which application was allowed on 28l August, 1997 with a direction to the tenant to file his written statement. The written statement was thereafter filed on 2nd February, 1999 mentioning therein that the tenant had never committed default in payment of rent and that as the landlord had refused to accept the rent w.e.f, September, 1996, the amount was sent through money-order which too was refused by the landlord as a result of which an application under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was filed which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 60 of 1997 and the rent was thereafter regularly deposited in the said Miscellaneous Case.

4. On 2nd September, 1999 an application was moved on behalf of the landlord under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) for striking off the defence of the tenant as the tenant had not only failed to deposit the entire arrears of rent but he was also not regularly depositing the monthly amount due during the continuation of the suit as was required under Order XV, Rule 5, CPC. An objection was filed on behalf of the tenant to the aforesaid application pointing out that he had been depositing the rent in Miscellaneous Case No. 60 of 1997 filed under Section 30 of the Act, which amount could be withdrawn by the landlord to which the tenant had no objection.

5. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad by his order dated 22nd March, 1999 allowed the application filed by the landlord and ordered that the defence should be struck off on the ground that the amount deposited under Section 30 of the Act in the Miscellaneous Case could not be considered for the purposes of Order XV, Rule 5, CPC. The Revision filed by the tenant against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the order dated 22nd March, 1999 holding that even after 7th July, 1997 when the tenant had put his appearance in the suit, the monthly amount was deposited not in the said Court but in Miscellaneous Case No. 60 of 1997 whic













































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top