Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2805
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Badruddin and Others - Appellant
Versus
A.D.J., Court No. 4 Varanasi and Others - Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 66598 of 2006 With C.M.W.P. No. 27626 of 2012 and C.M.W.P. No. 27094 of 2010
Decided On : 03-07-2014
For the Petitioner:- Akhileshwar Mishra,Ram Kishore Pandey
For the Respondent:- Brijesh Chanda Naik
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of compliance with Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, and the need to consider applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on their merits.
Headnote:
Ejectment - Tenancy - Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 - Section 17
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the non-payment of rent and arrears by tenants, leading to an ejectment suit. The tenants filed various applications seeking recall of ex parte judgment, permission to furnish personal security, and deposit decreetal amount in cash. The court proceedings involved multiple revisions, writ petitions, and reconsideration of applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders passed in the case, including the rejection of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, were influenced by the compliance of Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. The court directed the Trial Court to decide the tenant's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on merits within a specified period.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance of Section 17 of the Act, 1887, and the reconsideration of applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the mandatory requirement of Section 17 of the Act, 1887, and the need to consider the tenant's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on its merits.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to decide the tenant's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on merits within a specified period.
Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.C. Naik Advocate for respondents.
2. All these three writ petitions are connected having arisen from the same Original Suit No. 36 of 1998 and, therefore, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to these writ petitions may be summarized as under.
4. One Badruddin son of Ajimulla, own house No. C-17/28, Pitarkunda, Varanasi. In aforesaid house one room on the ground floor and two rooms on first floor were under the tenancy of Kabir Alam son of Abdul Karim, Nihaluddin, Jamaluddin, Ijahar and Irshad Ahmad sons of Ajimulla on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. Alleging that rent has not been paid from June, 1991 to February, 1998 and there is arrears of rent of Rs. 2025/- till then, original suit for ejectment of tenants as also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for the period of occupation of building after determination of tenancy vide notice dated 10.03.1998 was instituted by Sri Badruddin in the Court of Judge Small Cause, Varanasi. It was registered as SCC Suit No. 36 of 1998.
5. The suit was decreed ex parte. Trial Court held that despite service of summons defendants have not responded. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.1999, it was decreed.
6. Kabir Ahmad alias Kabir Alam, i.e., defendant no. 1 in aforesaid suit filed an application (Paper No. 4C) dated 29.07.1999 under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for recall of ex parte judgment and decree dated 30.03.1999.
7. An application (Paper No. 9C) was also filed by defendant no. 1 seeking permission of Trial Court to furnish personal security in lieu of decreetal amount in purported compliance of Section 17 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1887").
8. Trial Court took up application (Paper No. 9C) and observed that defendant no. 1-applicant has not pressed application from 29.07.1999 to 15.09.2000 and even on 20.10.2000 when the matter was posted for disposal of application (Paper No. 4C) filed under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. The application (Paper No. 9C) seeking permission for furnishing personal security was rejected as not pressed. The application (Paper No. 4C) filed under Order IX Rule 13, however, was deferred for 10.11.2000.
9. Against order dated 20.10.2000, whereby application (Paper No. 9C) was rejected, defendant no. 1-applicant preferred SCC Revision No. 76 of 2000, which was rejected by District Judge, Varanasi, vide judgment dated 04.11.2000.
10. Thereafter, Kabir Ahmad alias Kabir Alam, defendant no. 1 filed another application dated 10.11.2000 before Trial Court seeking permission to deposit decreetal amount in cash. The said application as well as application (Paper No. 4C) filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, both were rejected vide order dated 10.11.2000.
11. The order dated 20.10.2000 passed by Judge Small Cause Court rejecting application (Paper No. 9C) as also original order dated 04.11.2000 passed by District Judge in SCC Revision No. 76 of 2000 were challenged in Writ Petition No. 2097 of 2001. While entertaining this writ petition the Court vide order dated 22.01.2001 permitted defendant no. 1, i.e., Kabir Ahmad alias Kabir Alam to deposit entire decreetal amount, which tentatively was computed as Rs. 3000/-, upto 31.01.2001 by 15.02.2001. It was deposited. This writ petition was allowed by Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J. vide judgment dated 20.12.2000. The relevant operative part of the order reads as under:
"However, in view of the reasons stated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. This writ petition is liable to be allowed. The order dated 20.10.2000 (Annexure-8 to the petition) passed by Judge Small Causes Court Varanasi is set aside and the court below is directed to pass fresh order on the application (Paper No. 9-C) in accordance with law and proceed with the case."
12. It
