AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.B. Srivastava, J.—This writ petition is being heard and finally disposed of at admission stage with consent of parties.
The petitioners are the tenants of a house of which respondent No. 3 is the landlord. The respondent No. 3 filed a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profit, before the J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar, in which on the first date of hearing the petitioners in order to relieve themselves of ejectment tendered the entire amount of arrears of rent and damages, interest and costs etc. under Section 20(4) of Act 13 of 1972 which was paid directly to the counsel for the respondent No. 3 in the court below on her behalf. Thereafter a few dates for written statement were fixed, but when none was filed, the J.S.C.C. proceeded under Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C., and by a two sentence order decreed the suit for all the reliefs. Revision before the District Judge also failed.
While entertaining this writ petition on 7121994 this Court observed that as far as application of Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. by the court below was concerned, there was no legal flaw, but notice deserved to be issued about the consequences of the deposit under Section 20(4).
As far as the factum of payment of the entire amount as envisaged under Section 20(4) on the first date of hearing is concerned, there is no quarrel. It being so, if the suit were for ejectment merely on the ground of default, it would be liable to be dismissed. But it has been pointed out on behalf of the respondent No. 3 by her learned counsel that the ejectment was sought also on the ground of the petitioners'' denial of title of the respondent No. 3 as landlord. Such being the stage, it was necessary to decide the said question. However, neither the learned J.S.C.C. nor the revisional court adverted in any manner to the evidence and facts in this regard. The J.S.C.C. in a mechanical manner thought himself duty bound to decree the suit once Rule 10 of Order VIII, C.P.C. was resorted to. This, however, is not the intention of law. What Rule 10 says is that the court proceeding under the said provision would pronounce judgment, in other words, it has to consider the merits of the plea advanced and on that basis to pronounce judgment, and not to go on a dotted line taking the averment in the plaint as gospel truth, despite no evidence of any type having been produced to support the same.
Consequently for the above stated reasons, while the decree passed by the J.S.C.C. and the revisional order of the District Judge, are liable to be quashed, the suit cannot be dismissed at this stage as the issue with regard to the denial of title of the landlord and the effect thereof is still open.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the courts below are set aside. The case is remanded to the J.S.C.C. to decide the same on the limited issue of alleged denial of title by the petitionertenants and the effect thereof, expeditiously.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.