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

2

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 quest