High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Om Prakash v. Adj - WRIT - A No. 24406 of 1993  RD-AH 3373 (14 February 2006)
(Court No. 51)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24406 of 1993
Om Prakash Versus Special Judge/ A.D.J, Bulandshahr and others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Heard Sri Om Prakash learned counsel for the tenant petitioner and Sri R.K.Saxena learned counsel for landlord respondent.
This is tenant's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent instituted by landlord respondent No.3 Dharam Raj Singh in the form of SCC Suit No. 79 of 1979 on the file of JSCC, Bulandshahr. Suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was decreed on 12.8.1992 by JSCC, Bulandshahr. Against the said judgment and decree, petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 20 of 1992. A.D.J/ Special Judge, Bulandshahr dismissed the revision on 30.4.1993, hence this writ petition.
The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is in respect of benefit of section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
On 11.1.1980 which was a date fixed before the trial court, entire amount as required by section 20(4) of the Act had been deposited by the tenant. Both the courts below held that the said date was not the first date of hearing hence tenant was not entitled to benefit of said sub section according to which deposit must be made on first date of hearing. Suit was filed on 4.7.1979 and summons fixing 25.10.1979 was issued to the defendant. Summons was not served hence on 25.10.1979 fresh dates were fixed. 18.12.1979 was fixed for filing written statement and 11.1.1980 was fixed for final hearing. Defendant filed Vakalatnama on 18.12.1979. Both the courts below took 18.12.1979 to be the date of first hearing. The said date was fixed only for filing written statement and not for hearing. The said date having not been fixed for hearing there was no question of hearing on the said date. First date of hearing is the date on which court proposes to apply its mind. On a date fixed only for filing written statement, court does not proposes to apply its mind.
Accordingly I am of the opinion that judgments passed by both the courts below, decree of the trial court and order of the revisional court are erroneous in law and liable to be set-aside. Tenant had fully proved that he was entitled to benefit of section 20(4) of the Act.
Writ petition is allowed.
Judgment and decree passed by the courts below in respect of eviction are set-aside. Judgment and decree of the courts below in respect of arrears of rent are confirmed.
I have held in Khursheeda Vs. A.D.J 2004(2) ARC 64 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.
Property in dispute is a shop situate in Bulandshahr. Rent of Rs.93/- per month is highly inadequate.
Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from March 2006 onwards, tenant shall pay rent to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month inclusive of all taxes. No further amount shall be payable by the tenant.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.