Allowed

Hemant Bharti and Another v. Mohd. Taj

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2019WRIA/14692/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a tenant is entitled to protection against eviction under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1972 if they deposit the full adjusted rent on the first hearing, including adjustments made to prior deposits under Section 30, regardless of the duration of the prior rent covered by that deposit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgments dated 09.07.2018 and 29.08.2019 are set aside; the tenant's petition is allowed.

Hemant Bharti and Another Vs Mohd. Taj — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14692 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Hemant Bharti And Another Respondent :- Mohd. Taj

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Singh, Ashok Mehta (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pradeep Singh Sisodia, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Sri Hausala Prasad Mishra holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/respondent.

¶7

I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties.

¶8

Briefly stated facts of the present case are that admittedly the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the disputed building in which the defendant-petitioner is a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.530/-. According to the plaintiff water tax as per provisions of Section 7 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was separately payable and the defendanttenant/petitioner defaulted in payment of rent and, therefore, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 27/28.01.2012 to the defendant-petitioner determining the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.02.2010. The defendant replied the notice and stated that on refusal of the plaintiff to receive the rent, he deposited the rent under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No.60 of 2011. Thereafter, the plaintifflandlord/respondent filed SCC Suit No.17 of 2012 (Mohd. Taj Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bharti) which was decreed by the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2018, passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Saharanpur. The suit was decreed for eviction and for arrears of rent from 01.02.2010 to 02.03.2012 @ of Rs.530/- per month and expences. During pendency of the SCC Suit the original tenant died and he was substituted by his heirs and legal representatives who are the petitioners herein. Aggrieved with the judgment of the Judge Small Cause Court, the defendant-

¶9

¶10

tenant/petitioners filed SCC Revision No.13 of 2018 which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2019, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Saharanpur. Aggrieved with these two judgments, the defendant-tenant/petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶11

Undisputedly, the defendant-tenant/petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.9,450/- under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 in case No.60 of 2011 the defendant-tenant/petitioner. When the plaintiffrespondent filed SCC Suit No. 17 of 2012, the defendant-tenant deposited the entire amount on the first date of hearing after adjusting the amount deposited under Section 30(1). The amount so deposited was also received by the plaintiff-respondent. The break up of deposit made on the first date of hearing under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 has been given in the application 17 C, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 3 which clearly indicates the details of deposit as under:-

¶12

Rent from 1.2.2010 to 30.6.2012	Rs.15,370/-
Water tax etc.	Rs.2,305.50
Interest	Rs.1,141.86
Notices expences	Rs.1,200/-
Advocate's Fee	Rs.1,042.75
Court Fee	Rs.1,205/-
Total	__________ Rs.22,265.11
(-) Adjusted deposit under Section 30,	Rs.9,540.00
Balance amount deposited by Tender	Rs.12,725.11

¶13

The deposit so made by Application 17 C under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 as per above details has neither been disputed before the Judge Small Cause Court nor before the revisional court nor

¶14

¶15

before me. Thus, the fact of deposit as per details noted above under Section 20(4) of the Act is wholly undisputed.

¶16

A copy of tender has also been filed alongwith the petition which shows that sum of Rs.12,725.11 was deposited by the petitioner. A copy of receipt dated 10.07.2012 submitted by the plaintiff-respondent in the aforesaid SCC Suit No.17 of 2012 has also been filed which shows that the plaintiff-respondent withdrawn/received the aforesaid unconditional deposit of Rs.12,725.11 under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Thus, as per evidences on record the entire deposit on the first date of hearing was made by the defendant-tenant/petitioner and, therefore, he was entitled for the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

¶17

Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 clearly provides that on unconditional payment or deposit of the entire amount of rent and damages by the tenant on the first date of hearing of the suit alongwith cost and expences and interest, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under Sub-Section 1 of Section 30, the Court may in view of passing a decree for eviction on the ground under Sub-Section 2(a) of Section 20, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground. Thus, on deposit of the entire amount in the suit on the first date of hearing the defendanttenant/petitioner was entitled for the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

¶18

Both the courts below recorded perverse finding and completely misread the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act to deny to the tenantpetitioner the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act on the ground that the deposit made under Section 30(1) was actually for 18 months' rent and not 19 months' rent as was mentioned by the tenant-petitioner while making the deposit under Section 30(1). Whether the rent under Section 30(1) of the Act was deposited by the tenant-petitioner for 18 months or for 19 months, is not relevant. The relevant fact for the purposes of Section 20(4)

¶19

¶20

of the Act is the adjustment of the amount deposited under Section 30(1). Undisputedly, the defendant-tenant/petitioner deposited Rs.9,450/- under Section 30(1) and he adjusted this amount alone while making deposit under Section 20(4) of the Act. The entire amount of water tax was also deposited. Thus, the defendant-tenant/petitioner was entitled for the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. That apart, the SCC Suit was decreed only for the rent @ Rs.530/- per month.

¶21

For all the reasons aforestated, the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2018 in SCC Suit No.17 of 2012 (Mohd. Taj Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bharti), passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Saharanpur and the judgment dated 29.08.2019 in SCC Revision No.13 of 2018 (Hemant Bharti and another Vs. Mohd. Taj) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Saharanpur, can not be sustained and are hereby set aside.

¶22

The petition is allowed . However, there shall be no orders as to costs.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.11.2019/vkg

Hemant Bharti and Another v. Mohd. Taj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Bharti and Another v. Mohd. Taj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Neelam Agrawal and Another Vs Rahul Gupta and Another

Deo Raj Vs the Court of the Judge Small Causes, Allahabad and 5 Others

Mohan Babu Agarwal Vs the Additional District JUDGE-6, Aligarh and 2 Others

Banke Lal Agrawal Vs Smt. Dr. Mithilesh Bansal and 2 Others

Ashok Agrawal and 2 Others Vs Shaukat Ali

Ramesh Kumar Gautam Vs Suresh Chandra Gupta