AFR Reserved On: 23.01.2025 Delivered On: 13.02.2025 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21459 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5780 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Jain Respondent :- Mohammad Imran And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Goel Bansal,Shalini Goel Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla,Smriti Gupta Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

1. Heard Ms. Shivangi Nanda, learned Advocate holding brief of Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Ms.

Smriti Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for landlord respondents.

2. The tenant petitioner is before this Court questioning the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Causes, Jhansi in SCC Suit No. 17 of 2015 decreeing the suit for eviction as well as the judgment and order dated 12.04.2025 passed by Additional District Judge Court No.4 Jhansi affirming the judgment of the trial court.

3. Ms. Nanda, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner assailing the judgment and degree, submitted before the Court that tenant petitioner having made sufficient deposit of arrears of rent due to be paid as per notice coupled with interest, court fee and expenses, was entitled to statutory benefit provided for under Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Urban Building Control of Letting Rent and eviction Act 1972. She argued that the admitted rate of rent as per the plaint itself was Rs. 80 per month and the amount that was due to be as per claim in the notice was with effect from 01.04.2013 till 12.05.2015 with further two months of June and July, as the suit came to be instituted in August 2015. So according to Ms. Nanda the amount that was to be calculated towards the arrears should have been at the rate of Rs. 80 and further taxes and interest with Advocate fee and according to her the total amount that was deposited on the first date of hearing was Rs. 8,000/- which included rent, taxes, interest and Advocate fee. This deposit was made according to her on 13.09.2015 soon after filing of the suit vide challan 57-C and the rent subsequently came to be deposited continuously. However, trial court found the deposit to be not sufficient for want of requisite deposit towards damages and thus, it came to be held that, petitioner having not deposited the amount as per Section 20 (4),was not entitled to avail statutory benefit.

4. Ms. Nanda further argued that non compliance of Rule 21 (5) does not arise in the present case for the simple reason that no such claim was made by the petitioner qua deposit under Section 30 (1). She vehemently urged that never ever any such claim was set up, nor any such miscellaneous case was filed seeking deposit under Section 30 (1) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. Thus, according to Ms. Nanda the findings returned to the effect that petitioner was not entitled to statutory benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 is perverse and deserves to be set aside and hence, on that count the judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge is clearly unsustainable. She further argued that the same manifest error was committed by the appellate Court and, hence, the judgment of the appellate court affirming the order of the trial judge is equally bad and deserves to be set aside. In support of her submission, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kashi Nath v. Sushila Devi

2003 (2)ARC 347

5. Taking the argument further on the issue of quantum of deposit and the heads under which deposit is to be made under Section 20 (4) Ms. Nanda argued that the damages cannot be more than the agreed rent between the parties in respect of building covered under Act No. 13 of 1972. According to her, if the damages are taken to be at the rate of Rs. 80 per month as the rent was, even then the deposit was sufficient. She has placed reliance upon the two judgments of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in State Bank of India v. Shankar Dayal Agarwal 2010 2 ARC 378 as w