TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Ejectment: Defendant Liable for Termination of Tenancy under U.P. Act</h1> <h3>Sri Nath Agrawal Versus Santosh Kumar</h3> The court upheld the decision of the lower court, dismissing the revision and directing each party to bear their own costs. The defendant failed to ... - Issues Involved:1. Termination of tenancy and ejectment.2. Application for attachment before judgment.3. Deposit of rent and damages under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972.4. Definition and significance of 'first hearing' under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972.5. Waiver of the right to service of summons.Detailed Analysis:1. Termination of Tenancy and Ejectment:A suit for the ejectment of the revisionist was filed by the opposite party on 22nd August 1978 after terminating his tenancy by means of a notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court decreed the suit against the defendant, leading to this revision.2. Application for Attachment Before Judgment:Along with the filing of the suit, the plaintiff prayed for attachment before judgment of certain property belonging to the defendant. The court issued an interim attachment order and fixed 4th September 1978 for hearing the application. The defendant's counsel sought time to file objections, which were eventually filed on 11th September 1978.3. Deposit of Rent and Damages Under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972:The defendant deposited a sum of Rupees 12,000/- on 24th October 1978, covering the entire dues payable to the plaintiff. The defendant contended that since he deposited the entire amount before the first date of hearing, he was entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. However, the court below did not accept this plea.4. Definition and Significance of 'First Hearing' Under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972:Section 20(4) states that if the tenant pays or deposits the entire amount of rent and damages at the first hearing, the court may relieve the tenant from eviction. The explanation added in 1976 defines 'first hearing' as the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant. The court concluded that the order sheet dated 11th September 1978, where the defendant was present and the date for filing the written statement and final hearing was fixed, should be treated as the 'first hearing.'5. Waiver of the Right to Service of Summons:The defendant appeared in response to a notice on the application for attachment before judgment and sought time for filing objections. The court observed that the defendant never protested against the lack of service of summons and acted in a manner that indicated a waiver of this right. The court held that the defendant's conduct throughout the proceedings showed that he had waived his right to have a summons served on him.Conclusion:The court concluded that the date 11th September 1978, when the defendant was present, should be treated as the 'first hearing' within the meaning of Section 20(4) read with its Explanation. Since the defendant did not deposit the rent within the required time frame, he could not avail of the protection under Section 20(4) and was liable for ejectment. The revision was dismissed, and the decision of the court below was upheld.Final Order:The revision is dismissed, and the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
