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 protections.

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 Jauhari, learned Advocate appearing for respondents that not only the proper deposit was made under Section 20 (4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 through tender on the first date of hearing but even subsequently on account of certain default in payment of rent when defence was likely to be struck off, the entire arrears were cleared and court by its order passed in that regard entertained the defence of the tenant. He submits that findings qua factum of deposits under Section 20 (4) could not be assailed for the reason that deposit of tender was admitted to petitioners, in as much as the subsequent deposits were also accepted by the petitioners.

5. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the record, the sole point for consideration arises in this case for the Court is as to whether default if any made for the second part of order 15 Rule 5 CPC and later making the deficiency good, would amount in any manner violation of Order 20 Rule 4 CPC so as to deny statutory benefit to the tenant. From the findings as it has come to be returned vide issue No. 4 by the Trial Judge, I find that order 15 Rule 5 CPC compliance has subsequently been made and the defence was entertained. This finding part has not been assailed as such except for the fact that there was certain default in deposits of regular rent. In my considered view, if second part deposit under Order 15 rule 5 is made then it cannot be said to be a lacuna hitting at the root of the deposit made under Section 20 (4). Coming to the question of deposit made under Section 20 (4), it is admitted to the petitioners, so also it has been decided, that deposit was made vide proper tender which detailed out not only arrears of rent between the period of 01.07.2008 and 30.09.2011 but also 9% interest, house tax, water tax, Advocate fee, clerk fee, and miscellaneous fee and this has been brought on record by the petitioner himself.

6. So far the authority relied by learned counsel for petitioner are concerned, in none of the authorities, I find that the issue qua deficit in deposit made under Section 20 (4) has been considered. In one case in the matter of Ram Prakash Jaiswal (supra) the Court went to consider issue of Order 15 Rule 5 which was germane in that case but not in the present case and hence, the authority is distinguishable on facts. Insofar as the second authority in the case of Mohd. Sayeed and others (supra) is concerned, I f