Neutral Citation No. - 2022:AHC:66762 A.F.R.

Reserved On : 26.4.2022 Delivered On : 07.05.2022 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 43 of 2022 Revisionist :- Sabir Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- Khali Ulla Counsel for Revisionist :- Muktesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pankaj Agarwal,Pankaj Agarwal Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for revisionists and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party.

Present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by District Judge, Aligarh in Misc. Case No. 340 of 2021 (Sabir Ahmad & another vs. Khali Ulla) arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 22 of 2019 (Khali Ulla vs. Sabir Ahmad & another).

Learned counsel for defendants-revisionists submitted that SCC Suit No. 22 of 2019 has been filed claiming rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Defendants-revisionists could not receive summon, therefore, they were unable to appear before the Court below. Accordingly, the said suit was decreed ex parte vide order dated 07.12.2020. It is next submitted that after knowing about the order dated 07.12.2020, defendants- revisionists have moved application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for recalling of ex parte order dated 07.12.2020. It is also submitted that Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1887’) provides to deposit the decretal amount for setting aside the ex parte decree, therefore, defendants-revisionists have also deposited the said amount. It is next submitted that plaintiff-opposite party has also moved application for releasing of amount so deposited in his favour, upon which defendants-revisionists have filed objection dated 12.01.2022 with specific case that this amount can only be released after disposal of application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC and not before that. Lastly, it is submitted that as per Section 17(2) of Act, 1887, as on date, defendants-revisionists are not liable to pay the amount and they would be liable only if application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC is rejected. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Smt. Krishna Devi vs. Shobha Chandra; 1981 ALL. L.J. 989. Therefore, under such circumstances, impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.

Per contra, Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party submitted that recall application has been filed by the defendants-revisionists with specific case that rent of house in question is only Rs. 200/-, therefore, in case of appearance of defendants-revisionists before the Court, they are required to fulfil the conditions of Section 20(4) of The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972’). He further submitted that Section 20(6) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provides that any amount so deposited by the tenant under sub-section (4) or under Rule 5 of Order XV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908) shall be paid to the landlord forthwith on his application without prejudice to the parties pleadings and subject to the ultimate decision in the suits. Court below has rightly released the amount so deposited in favour of landlord. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the matter of Prem Chandra Mishra vs. IInd Addl. District Judge, Etah and others; 2008 9 ADJ 13. He lastly submitted that in the light of Sections 20(4) & (6) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Order IX Rule 13 of CPC and Section 17(1) of Act, 1887, there is no illegality in the impugned order, therefore, present revision is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsels for parties and perused the records, provisions of law as well as judgments relied upon.

Facts of the case are undisputed and only question which is to be decided is as to wh