Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR
Mahmood Hasan – Appellant
Versus
Zakir Hussain – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Mahboob Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners and Shri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned Advocate appearing for respondents.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioners have questioned the judgment and decree passed by Trial Judge dismissing the suit on the score of sufficient deposits made under Section 20 (4) as prescribed for under Act No. 13 of 1972. The said judgment has come to be affirmed in the court sitting in revision.
3. The main submission advanced by learned counsel appearing for petitioners is that since petitioners failed to make deposit under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, therefore, they would not be permitted to avail the benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners has relied upon two authorities of this Court one in the case of Ram Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Rajwati and others decided on 28.08.2012 in Civil Revision No. 48 of 2012; 2012 3 ARC 528 and the other in the case of Mohd. Sayeed and others Vs. Shahanshah Alam and another 2007 68 AllLR 860
4. Per contra it is argued by Shri Bhanu Bhushan Jau
Sufficient deposits under Section 20(4) allow a tenant to maintain defense against eviction; compliance with procedural requirements of Order 15 Rule 5 can be rectified without voiding statutory prot....
Point of Law : The provisions under Order XV Rule 5(2) provides a locus poenitentiae to the defaulting tenant to make a representation, which must be made within ten days of the first hearing or with....
Tenants cannot be evicted for non-payment of rent if they have made proper deposits under legal requirements, and landlords had knowledge of these deposits.
The tenant's deposit under Section 20(4) must reflect the court-determined rent and damages, not merely the landlord's claims, to qualify for statutory protection against eviction.
Strict compliance with statutory provisions for rent deposits is mandatory; failure to comply invalidates the deposit and can lead to eviction.
Compliance with statutory requirements for rent deposit is mandatory for tenants to avoid eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building Act.
(1) Requirement of deposit in Court entire amount can be waived only when Court on previous application directs tenant to give such security for performance of decree or compliance with judgment.(2) ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
