A negligible shortfall in deposit for claiming protection from eviction should not disentitle the tenant from the benefit of the relevant legal provision.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the judgment and order dated 28. 4. 1997 and 5. 8. 1998 passed by the Judge Small causes Court, Saharanpur and the District Judge, saharanpur whereby the suit of the respondent landlord for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed and the revision against the same filed by the tenant-petitioner was dismissed.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Jain learned Counsel for the respondents.

( 3 ) THE only question involved in the present petition is whether a short fall of a negligible amount in making the deposit while claiming benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short referred to as the Act) could be ignored or it would be fatal for the tenant and will disentitle him claiming the protection from eviction.

( 4 ) THE facts relating to the present case are that on the first date of hearing the petitioner tenant deposited Rs. 9520/-, even though according to him the total amount due till that date was less than the said amount. The respondent landlord objected to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the act alleging that there was shortfall of Rs. 475/ -. The trial Court recorded the finding that there was a shortage of Rs 475/- and accordingly did not allow the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. In revision, the revisional Court held that the short fall was only of Rs. 410. 06 p. Before this court the Counsel for the respondent landlord has filed the statement giving the details of the amount due and the deposits made and according to it the short fall is only of Rs. 221/ -.

( 5 ) THE short fall, which is alleged, has been caused due to the claim by the plaintiff landlord regarding lawyers fee in the suit and also the costs of notice. According to the petitioner, this amount are not covered by Section 20 (4) and even if the lawyer fee is to be taken, only 50% according to the General Rules (Civil) would be applicable as per the 2nd proviso to Section 20 (4) of the Act. According to the landlord respondent, the Counsel fee came to Rs. 370/- and the charges of the notice were Rs. 350/- and the monthly rent Rs. 230a. In view of the deposits made by the petitioner and the statements submitted by the respondents on 12. 7. 2000, the short fall was only Rs. 221/- which was less than each of the three items mentioned above. However, looking to the total amount due and the short fall, it would be less than 3%, which is quite negligible and can be ignored. It is not even a months rent.

( 6 ) PETITIONER has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Judge small Causes Court reported in 2003 (1) ARC Page 588 and Subhash Chand v. Vinod Kumar reported in 2003 (2) ARC 103. In both these cases the Court has held that on account of negligible shortfall, the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act cannot be denied to the petitioner.

( 7 ) IN the present case without going into the question as to whether the amount claimed by the respondent landlord were admissible or not I am of the view that even if they were admissible the short fall is negligible and cannot deprive the petitioner of the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the act.

( 8 ) HOWEVER, looking to the circumstances that the petitioner has been occupying the premises and still wants to retain the same taking advantage of his own fault the landlord should be suitably benefited in terms of the rent. Relying upon the various pronouncement of the issue of this Court (reference may be had to (i) 2004 (2) ARC 334 Piyush Narain Dubey v. R. C. and E. O. Allahabad (ii) 2004 (2) ARC 268 Vishram Rai v. IIIrd A. D. J. Aligarh that the rent can be enhanced by the Court while exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution while adjusting the equities the rent may be enhanced to Rs. 750/- per month. This Court vide order dated 14. 5. 2004 had directed that with effect