TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The trial court, after evidence was recorded and arguments heard, found that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the said Act and decreed the suit. The revision application filed by the appellant was, as aforesaid, dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection before us. He submitted that the appellant had no approached the court with clean hands and that, therefore, we should not exercise in his favour the discretion under Article 136. The submission that the appellant had not approached the court with clean hands was based upon the findings of the trial court, affirmed by the High Court, that when the defendant had appeared before the trial court and made an application for time for filing a written statement and permission to deposit the arrears of rent under Section 20(4) for the said Act, it had not been stated that a copy of the plaint had not been received by the defendant. Upon the type-written application interpolations in this behalf had been made by hand. To the trial court the interpolations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ans the first date for any step or proceedings mentioned in the summons served on the defendant; 7. The trial court passed an order on 20th January, 1984, on receipt of the record of the suit from the court of the District Judge with orders to register the same, directing that notice be issued to the appellant requiring him to file a written statement by 22nd February, 1984 and fixing 28th February, 1984 for the framing of issues. On 22nd February, 1984 the trial court noted than the acknowledgment of the summons sent by registered post to the appellant had not been received and directed that the matter should stand over till the date fixed for the framing of issues. On 24th February, 1984 the appellant made to the trial court the application hereinbefore referred to. He averred that he had not been served with the summons nor had he refused to receive the same. He had come to know of the suit on that very day when the advocate for the respondent had asked him for how long he was not going to attend the hearing. He than instructed his advocate to inspect the file and in this manner came to know of the suit. He also came to know that the summons had been returned as having been refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Nath Agarwal v. Sri Nath 1983(2) Allahabad Rent Cases 422, which was relied upon by the trial court and the High Court, supported the case of the appellant. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent drop attention to the provisions of Section 20(4) of the said Act and laid emphasis upon the Explanation thereto which said that for the purpose of this Sub-section the expression first hearing meant the first date for any step or proceedings mentioned in the summons served on the defendant. In his submission, the date of first hearing was the date of the service of the summons on the appellant, which, in the instant case, had to be presumed since the summons had been returned by the postal authorities with the remark Refused . We do not question the latter part of the submission but, in our view, the date of the first hearing cannot, plainly, be the date of service of the summons. That is plain from the expression first hearing itself and from the meaning given to it in the said Act. 11. In the alternative, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the date of first hearing was 24th February, 1984 because tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out earlier, it is permissible under the Code for the defendant to file a written statement even thereafter but prior to the first hearing when the court takes up the case, since there is nothing in the said Act which conflicts with the provisions of the Code in this behalf. We are of the view, therefore, that the date of first hearing as defined in the said Act is the date on which the court proposes to apply its mind to determine the points in controversy between the parties to the suit and to frame issues, if necessary. 14. We must now consider the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sri Nath Aggarwal's case from which support has been derived in the claims is, in fact, in his favour. In the court below the case of the defendant therein was that since he had deposited the entire amount before the first date of hearing he was entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the said Act, but this contention was rejected and the defendant filed a revision application before the High Court. It was argued on his behalf that, admittedly, no summons had been issued and, therefore, he had not been given the opportunity of taking the benefit of Section 20(4) of the said Act by de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged upon the basis of the dates so fixed. 16. The date of first hearing in the instant case is not, therefore, 24th February, 1984 when the trial court passed orders on the application of the appellant for time to file a written statement and permission to deposit the full amount of the arrears. The contention of learned Counsel for the respondents to this effect must be rejected. Now, 24th February, 1984 was a date earlier than the date of hearing mentioned in the summons, namely, 28th February, 1984 The trial court gave to the appellant time until 24th March, 1984 to file his written statement and deferred the date of final hearing to 12th April, 1984, expressly cancelling the date 28th February, 1984 given in the summons. In our view, whether or not the provisions of Section 20(4) of the said Act were complied with by the appellant must be judged by the date of hearing so fixed. The full amount of the arrears were deposited on 5th March, 1984; there was, therefore, compliance by the appellant with the provisions of Section 20(4) of the said Act prior to the earliest date fixed by the court for the defendant to take the first step in the suit. 17. In the result, the appeal is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
