Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent initiated by the respondents against the appellant, a tenant. The respondents claimed that the appellant had fallen into arrears since February 1, 1968, and had not paid despite a notice of demand issued on January 8, 1975. The trial court decreed the suit ex parte due to the appellant's absence, but this decree was later set aside by the appellate court. The appellant subsequently deposited Rs. 2,912 on May 30, 1977, claiming it was the first date of hearing. Initially, he argued that he was not required to pay the entire arrears as they were time-barred, but later sought to amend his pleadings to include these arrears. The deposit of the time-barred arrears was made on October 1, 1977, after the amendment was allowed. The Additional District Judge ruled that the appellant was liable for eviction as he did not deposit the entire arrears by the first hearing date of August 30, 1977, as mandated by Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, affirming that the entire amount due had not been deposited in time. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that the first date of hearing was indeed August 30, 1977, and that the appellant's failure to comply with the statutory requirements justified the dismissal of his appeal. The court noted that the suit was treated as a small cause suit, which did not require the fixation of a date for settling issues, thus reinforcing the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions for eviction relief.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Tenant's Right to Eviction Relief - Requirement of Timely Deposit of Arrears - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 20(4) - The appellant failed to deposit the entire arrears of rent by the first date of hearing, which was determined to be 30.08.1977, leading to his eviction. The court upheld the necessity of strict compliance with the statutory requirement for relief against eviction. Held that the High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition (Paras 839D).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant complied with the requirements for relief against eviction under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's ruling that the appellant did not comply with the requirements of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, leading to his eviction.
Law Points
- Tenant's right to relief against eviction
- compliance with statutory requirements
- arrears of rent
- first date of hearing
- amendment of pleadings
