ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. versus RISHI RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 1158 · Decided: 08-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. 
v. 
RISH! RAM AND ORS. 
JULY 8, 2002 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. V ARIA VA, JJ.] 
UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972: 
C 
Section 20(4)-Suit for payment of arrears or rent-Payment of arrears 
of rent on the date for final disposal of case after adjournments for filing 
written statement-Whether arrears paid on first hearing-Held, yes, tenant 
entitled to the benefit of the provision. 
Section 20(4) Explanation (a)-"first hearing"-Meaning of-It is the 
D first date when the Court proposes to apply its mind and not the date when 
it actually applies its mind-Definition contained in the provision will prevail 
over the definition contained in Rule 5 of Order XV CPC-Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908-0rder XV, Rule 5 Explanation I. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
''First hearing"-Meaning of in the context of Section 20(4) UP. Urban 
Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 
Suit for recovery of the arrears of rent and for ejectment of the 
tenant (predecessor of appellant and respondent No. 3) filed by the 
F landlords (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) was posted for final disposal on 
20.5.1980. But time was extended upto 25.7.1980 and again upto 10.10.1980 
for filing written statement by the tenant and then the case was posted 
for final disposal on 10.10.1980. Tenant deposited all the arrears of rent 
on 10.10.1980. The case was again adjourned to 5.12.1980 due to non-
G availability of judge. Tenants contested the suit stating that the suit was 
liable to be dismissed in view of Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings 
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 as they had deposited 
the arrears of rent on the first hearing of the suit. 
Trial court, appellate court as well as High Court decided the case 
H against the tenants holding that they had failed to deposit arrears of rent 
1158 
• 
' 
ASHOK KUMAR v. RISH! RAM 
1159 
on· the first hearing i.e. 20.5.1980. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. In view of section 38 of UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation 
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the definition contained in clause 
A 
(a) of Explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 20 of U.P. Act will prevail B 
over the definition contained in Rule 5 of Order XV of the CPC as 
applicable to the State of U.P. It is too evident to miss that in contra-
.distinction to the "filing of written statement" mentioned in the definition 
of the said expression contained in Rule 5 of Order XV CPC, the language 
employed in clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act, 
refers to "the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the C 
Summons served on the defendant". Those words mean the first date when 
the Court proposes to apply its mind to identify the controversy in the 
suit and that stage arises after the defendant is afforded an opportunity 
to file his written statement. 11163-E-FJ 
Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor, J1994J 4 SCC 406; Advaita 
Nand v. Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut and Ors., J1995J 3 SCC 407 and 
Sudershan Devi and Anr. v. Sushi/a Devi and Anr., J1999J 8 SCC 31, relied 
on. 
D 
2. In the present case the suit was posted on May 20, 1980 for final E 
disposal but that date cannot be treated as the first hearing of the suit as 
the Court granted time till July 25, 1980 to the tenant for filing written 
statement. On July 25, 1980 time was extended for filing written statement 
and the suit was again adjourned for final disposal to October 10, 1980, 
Inasmuch as alter giving due opportunity to file written statement the suit 
was posted for final disposal on October 10, 1980 it was that date which F 
ought to be considered as the date fixed by the Court for applicati?n of 
its mind to the facts of this case to identify the controversy between the 
parties and as such the date of first hearing of the suit. Admittedly, on 
that date the appellant-tenant deposited all the arrears of rent. Though, 
the suit was again adjourned to December 5, 1980, it would be irrelevant G 
because the date of first hearing of the suit is the date when the court 
proposes to apply its mind and not the date when it actually applies its 
mind, It follows that the first hearing of the suit would not change on every 
adjournment of the suit for final disposal. The effective date of the first 
· hearing of the suit on wh.ich the Court proposed to apply its mind, on the 
facts of the case,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.