SUDERSHAN DEVI AND ANR. versus SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 29-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUDERSHAN DEVI AND ANR. 
v. 
SUSHILA DEVI AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 1999 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction. 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic-
C tion) Act, 1972:-Section 20(4)-Default in payment of rent-Suit for Evic-
tion-Tenants' rights to claim relief against eviction by depositing amars of 
rent on the ''first hearing of suit"-Summons issued fixing date of ''first 
hearing" on 20.2.90--Summons not accompanied by plaint-Fresh date for 
hearing fixed for 12.4.90--A"ears of rent deposited on 6.2.92:-Trial Court's 
D holding that a"ears of rent not deposited on due date-Eviction Ordel"-Af-
finned by High Court-Validity of-Held, amars of rent not deposited on or 
before "the first hearing of suit"--Order of Eviction. confinned. 
E 
F 
Words and Phrases: 
"The first hearing of the suit'~eaning and scope of in the context of 
Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 
Respondent no.1 filed a suit for eviction against her tenant on the 
ground of default in payment of rent. Notices were issued to the tenants 
by substituted service and the date for hearing was fixed on 22.2.90. The 
tenant filed an application seeking a copy of the plaint. The said applica· 
tion was allowed and next hearing was. fixed for 12.4.90. Thereafter, the 
matter was adjourned from time to time and the arrears of rent was 
G deposited by tenants in the Cqurt on 6.2.1992. The Trial Court, decreed 
the suit holding that the arrears of rent were not deposited on the 'first 
hearing:of the suit' on 22.2.90 as provided under Section 20( 4) of The Uttar 
Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972. The said eviction order was affirmed by the District Court and the 
H High Court. Aggrieved, tenants have preferred the present appeal. 
238 
SUDERSHAN DEVI v. SU SHILA DEVI 
239 
On behalf of the appellant-tenant it was contended that the words A 
'at the first hearing' meant the date when the first hearing actually took 
place and not the date fixed in the summons for hearing; and that the 
events that happened prior to the demise of the original tenant have to 
be ignored. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. Appellant-tenant is not entitled to claiin relief against 
eviction as the arrears of rent was not deposited on 'the first hearing of 
suit'. Thus, High Court and Subordinate courts were justified in ordering 
eviction under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings C 
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground of 
default in payment of arrears of rent. [243-D-E; 247-G] 
2.1. "The date oftirst hearing of the suit" appearing in Section 20(4) 
of the Act and in the Explanation added thereto would not be the date 
fixed for filing the written statement but would be the date proposed for D 
the hearing i.e. the date proposed for applying the Court's mind to deter-
mine the points in controversy and to frame issues, if necessary. The due 
date is the date fixed in the summons for final hearing. (251 -G; HJ 
Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor, [1993) 4 SCC 406 and 
Advaitea Anand v. Judge Small Causes Cou.rt, Meerut & Ors.; [1995) 3 SCC 
407, relied on. 
Ved Prakash Wadhwa v. Vishwa Mohan, (1981) 3 SCC 667; Sham 
Lal (dead) by Lrs. v. Atma Nand Jain Sabha, (1987) 1 SCC 222 and First 
Addi. District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur and Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 110, 
referred to. 
Srinath Aggarwalv. Srinath, (1983) 2 ARC 422 and Sia Ram v. District 
Judge, Kheri, (1984) 1 ARC 410 (FB), disapproved. 
E 
F 
2.2. In the instant case, the summons initially stated that the date 
for first hearing i.e. the date fixed for final hearing would be 22.2.90. All G 
the three courts below, therefore, held that the crucial date was 22.2.90 
and there was clear default by 22.2.90. But 22.2.90 would not be the due 
date. The summons were served in this case by substituted service and it 
was common ground that the summons were not accompanied by the 
plaint. The tenant therefore, filed an IA seeking a copy of the plaint. That H 
~ 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
; A application was allowed and a fresh date for filing written statement and 
a fresh date for 'first hearing' were given. The fresh date for final hearing 
was 12.4.90. but the arrears were not deposited even by that date. The 
contention that the Presiding Officer was on training on t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.