RAM KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. versus THAKURJI SHIVJI

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 07-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 241 
RAM KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
THAKURJI SHIVJI 
(Civil Appeal No. 1709 of 2006) 
OCTOBER 7, 2010 
[AFTAB ALAM AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, 
JJ.] 
A 
B 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, - · 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: 
C 
ss.20(2) and (4) - Suit for eviction and arrears of rent -
Decreed ex-parte - On ex-parte decree having been set 
aside, tenant deposited all arrears of rent in court - Application 
by landlord for eviction of tenant on the ground that arrears 
0 
had not been paid on· the first date of hearing - Revisional 
court and High Court holding the tenant not entitled to 
protection of s.20(4) - HELD: The ex-parte decree was fine!!y 
set aside after eight years - Though this may be discounted 
because there is the finding of the revisional court that the 
E 
summons in the suit were not served on the defendant-tenant, 
but the conduct of the appellants ( heirs of the original tenant) 
in the course of the later proceedings before the courts below 
as also before the Supreme Court disentitles them from any 
relief - The appellants have conducted the proceedings with 
complete lack of seriousness and in a highly cavalier manner 
F 
- Their writ petition before the High Court was dismissed for 
default twice - Meanwhile landlord got the possession of the 
suit premises - The way the proceedings took place before 
Supreme Court is not very different - The instant appeal too 
was dismissed for non-prosecution but was later restored -
G 
The landlord is held to ransom for the past more than six years 
for absolutely no fault on his part but simply because of the 
/aches on the part of the tenants - In the facts of the case, 
appeal dismissed leaving the question of law open. 
241 
H 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor, 1993 (2) 
Suppl. SCR 254 = (1993) 4 SCC 406; Advaita Nand v. 
Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 
407; Sudershan Devi & Anr. v. Sushi/a Devi & Anr., 1999 (3) 
Suppl. SCR 238 = (1999) 8 SCC 31; Ashok Kumar & Ors. 
B v. Rishi Ram & Ors·., 2002 ( 3 ) SCR 1158 = (2002) 5 sec 
641, referred to. 
c 
Case Law Reference: 
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 254 referred to 
(1995) 3 sec 407 
referred to 
1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 238 referred to 
2002 (3) SCR 1158 
referred to 
para 6 
para 6 
para 6 
para 6 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1709 of 2006. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.07.2004 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Petition No. 
E 8301 of 1991. 
Tulika Mukherjee (for P. Narasimhan) for the Appellants. 
Swati Sinha (for Fox Manda! & Co.) for_ the Respondent. 
F 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
G 
H 
ORDER 
Heard Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, counsel for the appellants and 
Ms. Swati Sinha, counsel appearing for the respondent. 
This is a tenants' appeal arising from a suit for eviction and 
arrears of rent under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings 
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 
'the Act'). 
· 
RAM KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. v. THAKURJI SHIVJI 
243 
The suit was filed in the year 1975 against the original 
A 
tenant Kali Prasac;t, whose heirs and legal representatives are 
now the appellants before this Court. It was decreed ex-parte 
on September 25, 1975. When the decree was put to 
execution, the tenant filed an application under Order IX, Rule 
13, on October 7, 1978 for setting aside the ex-parte decree. 
This petition was dismissed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, 
Gorakhpur. In course of the proceedings before the Small 
Causes Court, Kali Prasad had died and was substituted by 
B 
his heirs and legal representatives (the present appellants). 
They took the matter in revision. The Additional District Judge, c 
Gorakhpur, allowed the revision by order dated January 31, 
1983 holding that the summons in the suit were actually not 
served on Kali Prasad and hence, the ex-parte decree was 
liable to be set aside. Ten days later, on February 10, 1983, 
the tenants deposited all the arrears of rent in court. Over two 
0 
and a half years later, on December 13, 1985, the record of 
the case was received back in the Small Causes Court and 
the proceedings in the suit were resumed before the Small 
Causes Court on January 3, 1986. At that stage, a petition was 
filed on behalf of the respondent- landlord for allowing the suit 
E 
and directing the eviction of the tenants on the ground that the 
arrears of rent had not 

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