Anandi Devi Vs. Om Prakash - Court Judgment

A.P. Sen and; v. Balakrishnan Eradi, JJ.

1. In this appeal, the High Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in declining to interfere with the order of First Additional District Judge, Ballia without disclosing any reason. The learned Additional District Judge disallowed the prayer for eviction made by the appellant in her application under Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act 13 of 1972) in spite of his having come to the conclusion that the deposit of arrears of rent, which had fallen due from January 27, 1972 up to August 26, 1972, made by the respondent-defendant, was not a valid deposit under Section 13(2) of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge has failed to appreciate that the respondent having failed to comply with the requirements of Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by not making a deposit of arrears of rent together with interest and costs, the appellant's application for striking off the defence ought to have been allowed and thereafter the suit for eviction should have been decreed under Section 22(a) of the Act. In this view, the judgment and order of the High Court as well as that of the learned District Judge cannot be sustained. We accordingly set aside those judgments, allow this appeal and grant a decree for eviction under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act. The decree for arrears of rent passed by the learned Additional District Judge shall, however, stand. The respondent is given four months' time to vacate and surrender the premises subject to his filing the usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. No costs,