Back
2012 Supreme(All) 2881
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Laxmi Kant and Others -Appellant
Versus
Bhagwan Das and Others -Respondent
Writ A. No. 75922 of 2005 With Two Application Nos. 90601 of 2006 and 187922 of 2012
Decided On : 31-10-2012
Anand Behari Lal Verma, Advocate, for the respondents.
Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 led to the dismissal of the writ petition and the eviction decree being upheld.
Headnote:
Eviction - Rent Dispute - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 20(4)
Fact of the Case:
The respondents-landlords filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner-tenants from a shop due to non-payment of rent. The tenants disputed the rate of rent and claimed to have deposited the rent before the first date of hearing to avoid eviction.
Finding of the Court:
The courts found that the tenants had not complied with the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act, 1972, as they had deposited the rent at a lower rate and not before the first date of hearing.
Issues: Dispute over the rate of rent, compliance with Section 20(4) of the Act, 1972, and entitlement to claim benefit of the said section.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenants' failure to deposit the entire rent due at the correct rate before the first date of hearing meant they were not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, 1972.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the eviction decree passed by the lower courts was upheld.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.11.2000 whereby the Trial Court decreed suit of respondents-landlords for evic#31;tion of petitioner-tenants from the building in dispute which is a shop situated at Nehru Road, Farrukhabad and the order dated 25.11.2005 whereby petitioners' revi#31;sion has also been dismissed.
2. The suit was filed alleging that rent of shop is Rs. 50/- per month and tenants have committed default by not making payment of rent since 01.04.1992. The ten#31;ants disputed rate of rent after putting their appearance by filing Vakalatnama of their counsel on 17.07.1997 after service of summons on 05.05.1997. Thereafter they sought time for filing written statement which was allowed and the case was ad#31;journed on dozens of dates, i.e., 02.09.1997, 06.10.1997, 06.11.1997, 06.01.1998, 06.02.1998,07.03.1998,04.04.1998,04.05.1998,06.07.1998,10.08.1998,09.09.1998, 08.10.1998,10.11.1998,11.12.1998,12.01.1997,27.02.1999,27.03.1999,03.061999, 03.07.1999,06.08.1999,10.09.1999,12.10.1999,31.10.1999 and 25.11.1999. Ultimately on 14.12.1999 the petitioners-tenants deposited Rs. 2424/- claiming itself to be a purported compliance of Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") and filed written statement on f 5.12.1999. They claimed benefit of Section 20(4) that no decree of eviction should be passed against them since they have deposited entire amount of rent and other expenses before the first date of hearing.
3. Both the courts below have come to conclusion that though the tenants dis#31;puted rate of rent and claimed that it was only Rs. 20/- per month and not Rs. 20/- per month as claimed by respondents-landlords, but in fact it is Rs. 50/- per month. They have recorded a finding of fact that rent of shop was Rs. 50 per month. This finding has not been shown perverse or contrary to record. Having said so the courts below have also found that tenants deposited rent of shop in question on 14.12.1999 at the rate of Rs. 20 per month and not at Rs. 50 per month. Therefore, there was an apparent default on their part in compliance of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972.
4. Sri A.N. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that rent was deposited by tenants on 14.12.1999 treating the rate of rent as Rs. 20/- per month and not Rs. 50/-. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding on rate of rent after framing issue on it holding that rate of rent is Rs. 50/- per month. Therefore, there is no apparent compliance of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 on the part of petitioners.
5. Though the courts below have also held in the alternative that even if the rent is taken to be Rs. 20/- per month the deposit made on 14.12.1999 cannot be said to be a deposit made before first date of hearing and this part of the order has been challenged by petitioners by relying on Apex Court's decision in Advaita Nand Vs. Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut and others, 1995(1) ARC 563 but for my purpose suffice it to mention that question of fact regarding rate of rent having been decided in favour of landlords that rate of rent was Rs. 50/- per month, thereupon since, admittedly, the tenants have not deposited entire rent due at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month on the first date of hearing, therefore, he is not entitled to claim benefit of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 and the decree of eviction passed by courts below cannot be said erroneous or vitiated in law justifying inference by this Court.
6. No other point has been argued.
7. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Petition dismissed.
Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is an application for substitution of legal heirs of respondent no. 1 who is said to have died on 04.01.2006. The two sons of respon#31;dent no. 1 are already party to the writ petition as respondents no. 2 and 3. Only the widow is to be substituted.
2. Heard.
3. The
