MAM CHAND PAL versus SMT. SHANTI AGARWAL

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 1032 · Decided: 14-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAM CHAND PAL 
v. 
, ....... 
SMT. SHANTI AGARWAL 
' 
:--
FEBRUARY 14, 2002 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.) 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
c 
U.P. Urban Building (Regulation, Letting and Eviction ) Act, 1972 
Section 20(4). 
Payment or deposit of rent and other amount on the date of first hearing- -
Statutory requirement to protect tenant against eviction-Suit for arrears of 
rent, other charges and eviction on ground of default in payment of rent-
D Proceedings commenced-On date fv:ed Presiding Officer not available and 
case adjourned for next date-
Meanwhile tenant deposited rent and other 
charges before the date fixed for hearing but Presiding officer was not available 
and deposited lawyer's fee on next adjourned date-Courts below held date 
fv:ed when Presiding Officer was not available as date of first hearing and 
passed eviction order on non-compliance of statutory requirement- -On appeal, 
E held next adjourned date is the date of first hearing--As tenant deposited 
arrears of rent and other charges by that date there is sufficient compliance 
of statutory requirement and tenant is absolved of the liability of eviction. 
Deposit of arrears of rent and other amount-- Adjustment from one head 
F to another -Tenant deposits arrears of rent and other amounts except amount 
' 
on account of lawyers fee- Electricity charges also deposited though not 
required under the provision- Difference between amount of electricity charges 
and lawyers fee inconsequential- --Held, in such a case deposit under one head 
could be adjusted for the other. 
G 
Words and Phrases: 
Date of first hearing-Meaning of 
.;, 
Respondent-landlady filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent and other 
charges and eviction of appellant-tenant on the ground of default in payment 
H 
1032 
.. 
M.C. PAL v. SMT. SHANTI AGARWAL 
1033 
of rent Date was fixed for hearing. However, the appellant-tenant could not A 
be served notice and order for service of notice by publication was passed 
and date was fixed for hearing. On the date fixed the Presiding Officer was 
not available and the case was adjourned for the next date for hearing. In 
the meantime, appellant-tenant gained knowledge of the proceedings and 
deposited arrears of rent and other charges before the date fixed when the B 
Presiding Officer was not available including electricity charges even though 
it was not required. However, amount on account of the lawyers fee was 
deposited on the next adjourned date. 
Courts below accepted the date fixed for hearing when the Presiding 
Officer was not available as the date of first hearing and took the amount on C 
account of lawyers fee to be deposited after the first date of hearing. It was 
also held that amount deposited on account of electricity charges could not 
be adjusted for lawyers fee. Consequently, denying benefit of Section 20(4) 
to the appellant-tenant, eviction orders were passed. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The tenant-appellant had deposited the arrears of rent along 
with other amounts payable in terms of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban 
Building (Regulation, Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the date of first 
hearing so as to be absolved of the liability of eviction.(1035-D-E; 1040-D-EI 
D 
2. The position stands well settled that the date of first hearing is the E 
date on which the Court applies its mind to the facts and controversy involved 
in the case and any date prior to such a date would not be date of first hearing. 
For instance date for framing of issues would be the date of first hearing when 
the Court is to apply its mind to the facts of the case. As it relates to 
proceedings under the Small Cause Courts Act, there being no provision for F 
framing of issues any date fixed for hearing of the case would be the first 
date for the purpose. (1036-D-FI 
3. In cases where court itself is not available it could not be treated as 
first date of hearing. The amount deposited even before the date of first 
hearing amounts to sufficient compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of G 
the Act. In the instant case all the dues of arrears of rent as well as other 
amounts liable to be deposited under-section(4) of Section 20 of the Act had 
been duly deposited by the date of fist hearing which is the next date fixed 
after the date fixed when the Presiding Officer was not available. Thus, there 
has been sufficient compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Ac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.