1993 (9) TMI 375 - SC - Indian Laws

Eviction Suit Dismissed: Appeal Allowed as Compliance with Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings Act is Confirmed.

Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui Versus Prem Nath Kapoor

The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the HC and trial court judgments, and dismissed the eviction suit. It determined the appellant complied with ... - Issues Involved:1. Preliminary Objection Regarding Clean Hands2. Interpretation of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 19723. Determination of the 'First Hearing' Date4. Compliance with Section 20(4) Provisions5. Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sri Nath Aggarwal's Case6. Outcome and Rent AdjustmentDetailed Analysis:1. Preliminary Objection Regarding Clean HandsThe respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection, asserting that the appellant had not approached the court with clean hands. This was based on findings by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court, indicating that the appellant had made interpolations in the application to secure the benefit of Section 20(4) of the said Act. The Supreme Court, however, did not dismiss the appeal on this ground, noting two reasons: the handwritten additions were merely amplifications of the typed content, and the additions were flanked by initials, presumably of the appellant's advocate.2. Interpretation of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972The provision of Section 20(4) was crucial in this case. It stipulates that in any eviction suit on the ground of rent arrears, if the tenant unconditionally pays or deposits the entire amount of rent and damages due, along with interest and the landlord's costs, the court may relieve the tenant from eviction. The explanation defines 'first hearing' as the first date for any step or proceedings mentioned in the summons served on the defendant.3. Determination of the 'First Hearing' DateThe trial court initially fixed 28th February 1984 for framing issues. However, the appellant filed an application on 24th February 1984, claiming non-receipt of the summons and requesting time to file a written statement and deposit arrears. The trial court granted this request, cancelling the 28th February date and setting new dates: 24th March 1984 for filing the written statement and 12th April 1984 for the first hearing. The Supreme Court held that the 'first hearing' date is when the court proposes to apply its mind to the case's contentions and frame issues, not merely the service of summons.4. Compliance with Section 20(4) ProvisionsThe appellant deposited Rs. 11,000 on 25th February 1984 and an additional Rs. 1,205 on 5th March 1984, making the total deposit Rs. 12,205, which exceeded the arrears. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had complied with Section 20(4) provisions before the first hearing date fixed by the court, which was 12th April 1984.5. Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sri Nath Aggarwal's CaseThe Supreme Court reviewed the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Sri Nath Aggarwal's case, which stated that when time is fixed by the court for filing a written statement and hearing, these dates bind the defendant regardless of the service of summons. The Supreme Court agreed with this ratio, emphasizing that compliance with Section 20(4) must be judged based on the dates fixed by the court.6. Outcome and Rent AdjustmentThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court, and dismissed the respondent's suit. Additionally, the court considered the rent amount, suggesting an increase. The appellant's counsel agreed to a higher rent, to be determined by agreement or under statute.Conclusion:The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the issues surrounding the interpretation and application of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. It concluded that the appellant had complied with the statutory requirements before the first hearing date fixed by the court, thus entitling him to relief from eviction. The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the suit for eviction was dismissed. The court also suggested a rent adjustment, to be agreed upon by the parties or determined under statute.