AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prakash Krishna, J.—The present revision has been filed u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9th of March, 2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Muzaffarnagar in JSCC suit No. 16 of 2010.
Kamal Kant Goel, the opposite party herein, instituted the aforesaid JSCC suit No. 16 of 2010 against the Defendants who are the applicants herein for their ejectment from the shop No. 3 situate at Hanuman Road, District Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter to described as property in dispute). The suit was filed on the pleas inter alia that the Defendants were tenants at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- and were also liable to pay the house tax and water tax in addition thereto, total Rs. 168.88 per month. They paid the rent under the receipt dated 31st of August, 2006. The rent for the Subsequent months was not paid in spite of notice of demand. The tenancy has been determined by serving a notice u/s 106 of the T.P. Act. The eviction of the Defendant was sought on number of grounds namely:
� The Defendants are in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st of September, 2006 whose tenancy has been determined by serving a notice and have failed to pay the same in spite of service of notice;
� The Defendants have disfigured and diminished the value of the shop by installing a generator of 10 KV HP in the shop;
� The material alterations have been made in the shop by replacing the wooden door by iron shutter; and
� They have used the shop for a purpose other than for which it was let out to them.
The suit was contested by denying the plaint allegations but the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. It was pleaded that the monthly rate of rent is inclusive of house tax and water tax also. The other allegations regarding the diminishing the value of the shop, change of its user etc. were denied. Benefit u/s 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was claimed on the ground that they have deposited the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing at the rate of Rs. 167/- per month.
The parties led evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases. The points for determination were struck by the trial Court.
The trial Court has found that the Defendants are in arrears of rent as claimed by the Plaintiff and are defaulters and are therefore liable for eviction. The benefit of Section 20(4) as claimed by the Defendants was denied on the ground that the deposit made by the Defendants was short and was not unconditional. On other points, the trial Court found that the Defendants are using the shop for the purpose other than for which it was let out to them. It was found that the Defendants have diminished the utility and value of the shop in question by installing the generator in the shop in question and are thus liable for eviction on that ground also. Future damages were claimed at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month but it was decreed at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- only.
Heard Sri P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the applicants and Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff opposite party. The learned Counsel for the applicants Submitted the following two points for consideration of this Court:
� The Court below wrongly refused to extend the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The deposit of arrears of rent made by the applicants was not conditional one;
� The findings of the Court below that the Defendants have materially altered the accommodation in question is also legally incorrect. The Defendants have at the most replaced the wooden door with iron shutter. According to the learned Counsel, it has enhanced the utility and value of the shop in question.
In reply, the learned Counsel for the landlord Submits that taking the case of the Defendants on its face value, the deposit made by the Defendants is short, whether the deposit is conditional or unconditional notwithstanding. Elaborating the argument, it was Submitted that besides the arrears of rent, an applicant u/s 20(4) of the Act is also required to deposit the interest on the arrears of rent as also the cost of the suit which was not done in the present case.
Considered the respective Submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment under revision.
Taking the first point first, it may be stated that Sri Sinha has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Trilok Nath Gupta v. VI Ith ADJ, Kanpur 1993 (9) ALR 357 in support of his contention that the deposit of rent u/s 20(4) was unconditional one.
It may be noted that the Defendants-tenants disputed the claim of the Plaintiff with regard to the rate of rent. The case of the Plaintiff was that the shop was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- and besides the monthly rent, the Defendants were liable to pay the house tax and water tax @ 10% of the annual letting value and thus, the total rent payable by the Defendants comes to Rs. 166.88. The Defendants while making the deposit contended that the rate of rent is Rs. 150/- which is inclusive of the taxes. In this background, it was Submitted that the deposit was unconditional one. It id difficult to agree with him. Section 20(4) has been enacted with a view to provide one more opportunity to such tenants who are defaulters in payment of rent to save their tenancy provided they deposited the arrears of rent etc. without any dispute. Meaning thereby, the tenant accepts the claim of the Plaintiff. The case which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the rent was claimed by the Plaintiff at higher rate which was disputed by the tenants and it was found that the stand of the tenant is correct. In this background, the Court held that the deposit of rent by the tenant was unconditional one. In the case on hand, the position is converse. The landlord claimed that besides Rs. 150/- per month the Defendants are liable to pay the house tax and water tax which comes to Rs. 166.88 per month. The case of the landlord has been found to be correct by the Court below. In this fact situation, it cannot be said that the deposit of rent by the tenants was unconditional one.
It is not necessary to dwell upon this issue any further in view of the admitted fact that the Defendants have failed to comply with the Substantive provision of Section 20(4) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, Section 20(4) of the Act is reproduced below:
Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds.
(1) ....
(2) ....
(a) ....
(b) ....
(c) ....
(d) ....
(e) ....
(f) ....
(g) ....
(3) ....
(4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in Clause (a) of Sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or 1[tenders to the landlord or deposits in Court] the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord''s costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting there from any amount already deposited by the tenant under Sub-section (1) of Section 30, the Court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground.
xxxx
Its bare perusal would show that a tenant is required to make the following deposits before he can claim the benefit of the aforesaid Section:
� Arrears of rent;
� Interest @ 9 per cent per annum; and
� Landlord''s cost of the suit.
In the case on hand, admittedly, the Defendants have deposited only the arrears of rent. They have not deposited any amount either towards the interest or towards the cost of the suit. This factual position was not disputed by Sri Sinha during the course of the argument. This being so, at any rate, the Court below was justified in not extending the benefit of the said provision to the applicants.
So far as the second point is concerned, it may be noted that a great amount of evidence was led by the Plaintiff which was not disputed before this Court to show that as a result of installation of generator set in the shop in question, the walls of the shops have been cracked. They have become black due to smoke produced by the generator. The trial Court has found that it has diminished and reduced the utility of the shop. The vibration produced by the running of the generator has made the building week and has reduced its life. No attempt was made by the learned Counsel to challenge the aforesaid findings which were recorded by the trial Court. Only this much was Submitted that the wooden door has been replaced by iron shutter. The trial Court has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and has reached to the conclusion that due to the running of the generator the shop has been disfigured and the vibration produced by the generator has weakened the building. The said finding, in absence of any contrary material cannot be interfered with in a revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
It has come on record that the shop was let out to the Defendants to sell electrical goods. The said business was discontinued and the generator was installed. The Defendants are supplying the electricity energy produced by the said generator to Union Bank of India and to other nearby shop keeper against charges. It has reached to the conclusion that the Defendants are using the shop for the purpose other than for which it was let out to them.
The trial Court has also found that the Defendants have stopped making the deposit of monthly rent/damages during the pendency of the suit since 30th of June, 2010 and their defence was liable to be struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
No argument was advanced by the learned Counsel to challenge the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court.
In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in the present revision. No other point was pressed. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
At the end, the learned Counsel for the applicants states that some reasonable time for vacating the disputed premises may be granted. Sri Pankaj Agrawal, learned Counsel for the opposite party, has no objection for grant of reasonable time. Taking into consideration that the Defendants were old tenants, time up to 30th of November, 2011 to vacate the premises in dispute is granted on the following two conditions:
� That the Defendants/tenants shall deposit the entire arrears of rent and the damages for future use and occupation of the building at the decreed rate (i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per month) within a period of one month before the trial Court for the period up to 30th of November, 2011. The amount already deposited shall be adjusted.
� Within the aforesaid period of one month, they shall file an undertaking on affidavit before the Court below that they will vacate the disputed premises on or before 30th of November, 2011 without creating any third party interest and will handover the vacant possession to the landlord.
In case the tenants fail to vacate the disputed accommodation within the aforesaid period, they will pay the damages at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-per month w.e.f. 1.12.2011 till the actual vacation.
In case of default in compliance of either of the conditions within the stipulated time, it shall be open to the landlord to put the decree in execution.
Revision is, therefore, dismissed summarily.