High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Das Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, whereby the suit for ejectment as well as recovery for arrears of rent has been decreed and so also the order passed by the court sitting in revision, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Causes Court has come to be affirmed.

3. Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate has raised two arguments: firstly the deposit was made well before the date of first hearing and, therefore, the findings to the contrary returned by the court of first instance as well as court sitting in revision are perverse as being against the evidence on record; and secondly sufficient amount was deposited as per the provisions contained under Section 20(4) of the Act No.- 13 of 1972 and a Judge Small Causes Court as well as the court of appeal have really failed to discuss this point while holding that the amount deposited was not as required under the relevant law.

4. Per contra, it is argued by Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent that even if it is accepted for argument's seek that the deposit made under Section 20(4) was sufficient, there was a finding to the effect that no deposit was made on or before the first date of hearing.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that point No.- 4 has been discussed by the Judge Small Cause Court as to whether tenant petitioner was entitled to the statutory benefit under Section 20(4) of the Act No.- 13 of 1972 and has returned findings to the effect that neither deposit was made on or before the first date of hearing as the suit came to be instituted in September, 2016 whereas the deposit came to be made only on 24th January, 2017, inasmuch as the calculation of interest was not at the rate of 9% over and above the amount of rent and damages.

6. The court sitting in revision has held that the deposit was not made on or before the first date of hearing and also affirmed the judgment of the court of Judge Small Causes as to the insufficiency of deposit made under Section 20(4) of the Act No.- 13 of 1972.

7. In my considered view the first argument is important insofar as the date of deposit is concerned in the event it is found that the deposit was made on or before the first date of hearing then only question as to the sufficiency of deposit would arise.

8. The ordersheet has come to be referred to and discussed in detail by the court of revision, and it has come to be recorded that on 12th September, 2016 when the case was instituted it was recorded by the trial court that application No. 16Gha was presented and hence 24th October, 2016 is fixed for its disposal. On 24th October, 2016 the plaintiff appeared but the defendant filed his application paper No.- 17Gha and also filed vakalatnama as paper No.- 18Gha and accordingly, 14th November, 2016 was fixed for written statement. On 14th November, 2016 while the plaintiff appeared, the date was fixed on 19th December, 2016 for written statement. On 19th December, 2016 again while plaintiff appeared and the case was adjourned to 24th January, 2017 for written statement. On 24th January, 2017 written statement was filed and 28th February, 2017 was fixed for evidence.

9. The court in revision has held that right from 24th October, 2016 till 14th November, 2016 no such deposit was made. The deposit came to be made only later on, on 24th January, 2017. Thus, first of such dates would be the date of first hearing for the defendant to deposit the requisite rent and damages as per Section 20(4) of the Act No.- 13 of 1972.

10. Mr. P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate has sought to urge that earlier the application was moved for directing the plaintiff to supply copy of the plaint but there is nothing so recorded in the ordersheet.

11. Upon a pointed query being made as to whether any application filed for seeking copy of the plaint, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner could not point from the record that any such application was filed and if filed what were the contents of the application. Learned Senior Advocate also could not point out as to when the copy of the plaint was exactly served to enable him to file written statement. From the records also he could not establish as to when he received the copy of the plaint so as to hold that first date was only 24th January, 2017 to enable him to file his written statement.

12. I do not find, therefore, any perversity in the findings returned by the court of first instance as well as court sitting in revision, instead, what I find is that despite several opportunities made available as dates again and again were fixed for written statement, the defendant deliberately failed to deposit the amount as required under Section 20(4) of the Act No.- 13 of 1972.

13. Thus, the petitioner since failed to deposit the amount as per Section 20(4) of the Act No.- 13 of 1972 on or before first date of hearing he was rightly denied to statutory benefit under Section 20(4) and the suit was rightly decreed for eviction and recovery for arrears of rent and damages.

14. Petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Atmesh ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Das Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, whereby the suit for ejectment as well as recovery for arrears of rent has been decreed and so also the order passed by the court sitting in revision, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Causes Court has come to be affirmed.

3. Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate has raised two arguments: firstly the deposit was made well before the date of first hearing and, therefore, the findings to the contrary returned by the court of first instance as well as court sitting in revision are perverse as being against the evidence on record; and secondly sufficient amount was deposited as per the provisions contained under Section 20(4) of the Act No.- 13 of 1972 and a Judge Small Causes Court as well as the court of appeal have really failed to discuss this point while holding that the amount deposited was not as required under the relevant law.

4. Per contra, it is argued by Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent that even if it is accepted for argument's seek that the deposit made under Section 20(4) was sufficient, there was a finding to the effect that no deposit was made on or before the first date of hearing.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that point No.- 4 has been discussed by the Judge Small Cause Court as to whether tenant petitioner was entitled to the statutory benefit under Section 20(4) of the Act No.- 13 of 1972 and has returned findings to the effect that neither deposit was made on or before the first date of hearing as the suit came to be instituted in September, 2016 whereas the deposit came to be made only on 24th January, 2017, inasmuch as the calculation of interest was not at the rate of 9% over and above the amount of rent and damages.

6. The court sitting in revision has held that the deposit was not made on or before the first date of hearing and also affirmed the judgment of the court of Judge Small Causes as to the insufficiency of deposit made under Section 20(4) of the Act No.- 13 of 1972.

7. In my considered view the first argument is important insofar as the date of deposit is concerned in the event it is found that the deposit was made on or before the first date of hearing then only question as to the sufficiency of deposit would arise.

8. The ordersheet has come to be referred to and discussed in detail by the court of revision, and it has come to be recorded that on 12th September, 2016 when the case was instituted it was recorded by the trial court that application No. 16Gha was presented and hence 24th October, 2016 is fixed for its disposal. On 24th October, 2016 the plaintiff appeared but the defendant filed his application paper No.- 17Gha and also filed vakalatnama as paper No.- 18Gha and accordingly, 14th November, 2016 was fixed for written statement. On 14th November, 2016 while the plaintiff appeared, the date was fixed on 19th December, 2016 for written statement. On 19th December, 2016 again while plaintiff appeared and the case was adjourned to 24th January, 2017 for written statement. On 24th January, 2017 written statement was filed and 28th February, 2017 was fixed for evidence.

9. The court in revision has held that right from 24th October, 2016 till 14th November, 2016 no such deposit was made. The deposit came to be made only later on, on 24th January, 2017. Thus, first of such dates would be the date of first hearing for the defendant to deposit the requisite rent and damages as per Section 20(4) of the Act No.- 13 of 1972.

10. Mr. P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate has sought to urge that earlier the application was moved for directing the plaintiff to supply copy of the plaint but there is nothing so recorded in the ordersheet.

11. Upon a pointed query being made as to whether any application filed for seeking copy of the plaint, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner could not point from the record that any such application was filed and if filed what were the contents of the application. Learned Senior Advocate also could not point out as to when the copy of the plaint was exactly served to enable him to file written statement. From the records also he could not establish as to when he received the copy of the plaint so as to hold that first date was only 24th January, 2017 to enable him to file his written statement.

12. I do not find, therefore, any perversity in the findings returned by the court of first instance as well as court sitting in revision, instead, what I find is that despite several opportunities made available as dates again and again were fixed for written statement, the defendant deliberately failed to deposit the amount as required under Section 20(4) of the Act No.- 13 of 1972.

13. Thus, the petitioner since failed to deposit the amount as per Section 20(4) of the Act No.- 13 of 1972 on or before first date of hearing he was rightly denied to statutory benefit under Section 20(4) and the suit was rightly decreed for eviction and recovery for arrears of rent and damages.

14. Petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Atmesh ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad