# Nand Lal Keshari v. Shashi Bhushan Agarwal

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1884
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-20
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 8078 of 2019
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nand-lal-keshari-v-shashi-bhushan-agarwal-45574
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 : Uttar Pradesh
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section
20(2)(a) - rent deposited up to the
month of March 2014 - SCC Suit -was
instituted on 7.7.2014 - petitioner - tenant
not in arrears of rent for four months or
more as on the date of institution of the
Suit - suit not maintainable - findings
recorded by the Courts below - arrears of
rent for more than four months as on the
date of institution of SCC Suit - perverse
and
contrary
to
the
documentary
evidences
on
record
-
impugned
judgments and decree in SCC Suit and SCC
Revision - set aside.(Para 22,23)

The plaintiff - respondent is the owner and
landlord of the disputed shop of which the
defendant - petitioner is the tenant at a monthly
rent of Rs. 200/- since 15.10.1982 - arrears of
rent as demanded was not paid by the
defendant - petitioner - plaintiff / landlord /
respondent filed SCC Suit which has been
decreed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) - Aggrieved defendant / tenant /
petitioner filed SCC Revision which has been
dismissed by the Court of District Judge.(Para
2,4)

Held:- A suit / case on the ground mentioned in
Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972
for eviction of a tenant from a building after the
determination of his tenancy may be instituted if
the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than
four months, and has failed to pay the same to
the landlord within one month from the date of
service upon him of a notice of demand.(Para22)

Matters Under Article 227 allowed. (E-7)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

1884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. It is further worth noticing that in
respect of petitioner's working as lecturer
for the last more than 15 years there has
never been any disciplinary action and she
is yet to officiate as principal. The
opposition to petitioner's claim on account
of none satisfactory work, therefore, cannot
be
accepted.
In
such
circumstances
petitioner's claim will not be overlooked
merely for the reason that her work and
performance is not satisfactory.

14. However, as law with regard to
right of a teacher who possess training
qualification in physical education was not
clear and the issue has been resolved only
in October, 2018 by the Larger Bench in
Amal Kishore Singh (supra) and the 5th
respondent has otherwise worked as
officiating principal, the salary already paid
to her for the post of officiating principal
shall not be recovered from her. The
petitioner would be entitled to salary for the
post of officiating principal in accordance
with the provisions of Section 18(2) of the
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Service
Selection Board Act, 1982.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1884

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 8078 of 2019
(CIVIL)

Nand Lal Keshari ...Petitioner
Versus
Shashi Bhushan Agarwal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Krishna Nand Rai, Sri Vijay Anand Rai

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Smt. Rajni Ojha, Sri Ravindra Nath
Chaubey

A. U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 : Uttar Pradesh
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section
20(2)(a) - rent deposited up to the
month of March 2014 - SCC Suit -was
instituted on 7.7.2014 - petitioner - tenant
not in arrears of rent for four months or
more as on the date of institution of the
Suit - suit not maintainable - findings
recorded by the Courts below - arrears of
rent for more than four months as on the
date of institution of SCC Suit - perverse
and
contrary
to
the
documentary
evidences
on
record
-
impugned
judgments and decree in SCC Suit and SCC
Revision - set aside.(Para 22,23)

The plaintiff - respondent is the owner and
landlord of the disputed shop of which the
defendant - petitioner is the tenant at a monthly
rent of Rs. 200/- since 15.10.1982 - arrears of
rent as demanded was not paid by the
defendant - petitioner - plaintiff / landlord /
respondent filed SCC Suit which has been
decreed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) - Aggrieved defendant / tenant /
petitioner filed SCC Revision which has been
dismissed by the Court of District Judge.(Para
2,4)

Held:- A suit / case on the ground mentioned in
Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972
for eviction of a tenant from a building after the
determination of his tenancy may be instituted if
the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than
four months, and has failed to pay the same to
the landlord within one month from the date of
service upon him of a notice of demand.(Para22)

Matters Under Article 227 allowed. (E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1. Harcharan Singh Vs. Smt. Shivrani & others) ,
1981 (2) SCC 535
2 All. Nand Lal Keshari Vs. Shashi Bhushan Agarwal
1885
2. Arun Kumar & others Vs. Thakur Ji Maharaj ,
2001 (43) AllLR, 74

3. Mahmood Khan Vs. IIIrd Additional District
Judge, Ballia & others , (1983) 2 ARC 198

4. Ram Singh Vs. Abdul Majeed , (2014) 1 ARC
368

5. Dr. Babu Ram Sharma Vs. IVth Additional
District Judge, Saharanpur & others , (2006) 2
ARC 239

6. Noor Mohd. & another Vs. IVth Additional
District Judge, Kanpur Nagar & others , (2006) 1
ARC 550

7. Vinay Kumar Agarwal Vs. 17th Additional
District Judge, Allahabad , (2001) (43) AllLR 700

8. Arun Kumar & others Vs. Thakurji Maharaj ,
(2001) (43) AllLR 74,

9. Mohammad Azim & another Vs. Gopal Singh ,
(2013) (1) AWC 1023,

10. Ram Kumar Singh Vs. IIIrd Additional
District Judge, Ghaziabad , (2003) 1 ARC 294,

11. Haider Abbas Vs. Additional District Judge &
others , Writ Petition No. 43734 of 2001

12. Atma Ram Vs. Shakuntala Rani , (2005) 7
SCC 211

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri K.N. Rai, learned
counsel for the defendant / tenant /
petitioner and Smt. Rajni Ojha, learned
counsel for the plaintiff / landlord /
respondent.

2. Necessary requirement to invoke
Section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972 is the main question involved in the
present petition.

Facts

3. Undisputably, the plaintiff -
respondent is the owner and landlord of the
disputed shop of which the defendant -
petitioner is the tenant at a monthly rent of
Rs. 200/- since 15.10.1982. The plaintiff -
respondent filed a P.A. Case No. 03 of 2001
(Sashi Bhushan Agarwal Vs. Nand Lal
Keshari) under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972 which was dismissed by the
Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge (Junior
Division), East, Ballia on 28.2.2007 on the
ground that the plaintiff - respondent failed
to prove his bonafide need for the disputed
shop. The said order of the Prescribed
Authority has attained finality.

4. Subsequently, the plaintiff -
respondent issued a notice dated 13.5.2014
by registered post to the defendant / tenant /
petitioner for eviction of the disputed shop
on the ground of default in payment of
rent since 1.7.2011. This notice was served
upon the defendant - petitioner by refusal
on 16.5.2014. Since, the arrears of rent as
demanded was not paid by the defendant -
petitioner, therefore, the plaintiff / landlord
/ respondent filed SCC Suit No. 03 of 2014
which has been decreed by the impugned
judgment dated 5.2.2019 passed by the
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Ballia. Aggrieved with this judgment, the
defendant / tenant / petitioner filed SCC
Revision No. 01 of 2019 which has been
dismissed by the impugned judgment dated
29.7.2019 passed by the Court of District
Judge, Ballia. Aggrieved with these two
judgments, the defendant / tenant /
petitioner has filed the present petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.

Submissions

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits as under:-
1886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i)
Since,
the
plaintiff
-
respondent refused to accept the rent from
July 2011, therefore the defendant / tenant /
petitioner started depositing it in Misc.
Case No. 65 of 2011 under Section 30(1) of
the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. He deposited
the rent in that Misc. Case for the period till
March, 2014.

(ii) Thus, as on the date of notice i.e.
13.5.2014, the rent for four months was not
in arrears, inasmuch as the rent upto the
period March, 2014 was deposited under
Section 30(1) of the Act. Therefore, the
notice determining the tenancy on account
of default in payment of rent invoking the
provisions of Section 20(2)(a) was itself
bad. of law to hold that the defendant /
tenant / petitioner defaulted in payment of
rent and was liable to eviction on the
ground mentioned in Section 20(2)(a) of
the Act.

(iii)
Under
the
facts
and
circumstances, both the
Courts have
committed a manifest error of law to hold
that the defendant / tenant / petitioner
defaulted in payment of rent and was liable
to eviction on the ground mentioned in
Section 20(2)(a) of the Act.

(iv) Apart from above, the defendant
- tenant deposited the entire amount pursuant to
the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court dated
4.4.2018 passed on application for deposit dated
25.2.2015. Therefore, the defendant / tenant /
petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Section
20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

6. In support of his submission, learned
counsel for the defendant - petitioner has relied
upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Harcharan Singh Vs. Smt. Shivrani & others)
1981 (2) SCC 535 (paragraphs 23 to 31) .

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff -
respondent submits as under:-

(i) The plaintiff - respondent supports
the impugned judgments. The rent deposited by
the defendant / tenant under Section 30(1) of
the Act is not a valid deposit as both the Courts
below have found that the plaintiff - respondent
has not refused to accept the rent for the months
of July and August, 2011.

(ii) The defendant / tenant / petitioner
completely failed to establish refusal by the
plaintiff - respondent to receive the rent. That a
part, the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 65 of 2011
was dismissed for non prosecution on 1.2.2014.
The restoration application being Misc. Case
No. 17 of 2014 was also rejected on 17.2.2017
by the concerned Court. The notice for default
in payment of rent was issued by the plaintiff -
respondent on 13.5.2014 which was served on
16.5.2014 and the SCC Suit was filed on
7.7.2014. Thus, as on the date of notice, the
defendant / tenant / petitioner was in arrears of
rent since July, 2011.

8. In support of her submission, she
relied upon a judgment of this Court in
Arun Kumar & others Vs. Thakur Ji
Maharaj 2001 (43) AllLR, 74 (paragraph
6) and another judgment of this Court dated
30.8.2017 in Matters Under Article 227
Number 4290 of 2017 (Smt. Kalawati Vs.
Deen Dayal Sharma Paragraphs 7 & 17).

Discussion and Findings

9. Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 provides as under:-

"A suit for the eviction of a tenant
from a building after the determination of
his tenancy may be instituted on one or
more of the following grounds, namely:
2 All. Nand Lal Keshari Vs. Shashi Bhushan Agarwal
1887

(a) that the tenant is in arrears of
rent for not less than four months, and has
failed to pay the same to the landlord
within one month from the date of service
upon him of a notice of demand:

Provided that in relation to a
tenant who is a member of the armed forces
of the Union and in whose favour the
prescribed authority under the Indian
Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 (Act No. IV
of 1925), has issued a certificate that he is
serving under special conditions within the
meaning of Section 3 of that Act or where
he has died by enemy action while so
serving, then in relation to his heirs, the
words "four months" in this clause shall be
deemed to have been substituted by the
words "one year"."

10.

Thus
as
per
aforequoted
provisions of Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972, a landlord acquires
right to institute a suit for eviction of a
tenant from a building after determination
of his tenancy if the tenant is in arrears of
rent for not less than four months, and has
failed to pay the same to the landlord
within one month from the date of service
upon him of a notice of demand. Thus to
institute a suit on the ground of eviction as
provided in clause (a) of sub-section 2 of
Section 20, there are two mandatory
requirements which both have to be
fulfilled: (i) the tenant is in arrears of rent
for not less than four months (ii) the tenant
has failed to pay the said arrears to the
landlord within one month from the date of
service upon him of a notice of demand.

11. Undisputably, the SCC Suit No.
03 of 2014 was filed by the plaintiff -
respondent on 7.7.2014 for eviction of the
petitioner - tenant on the ground under
Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972. At internal pages 10 & 11 of the
impugned judgment dated 29.7.2019 in
SCC Revision No.01 of 2019 passed by the
District
Judge,
Ballia,
it
has
been
mentioned that the petitioner - tenant filed
receipts of rent deposit in Misc. Case No.
65 of 2011 for the period from July 2011 to
March 2014. This, deposit of rent in Misc.
Case No. 65 of 2011 for the period from
July 2011 to March 2014 is undisputed.

12. The aforesaid Misc. Case No. 65
of 2011 was dismissed for non prosecution
on 1.2.2014. A restoration application being
Misc. Case No. 17 of 2014 was filed by the
petitioner - tenant in which the plaintiff -
respondent has filed an objection on
31.1.2015 mentioning the institution of
SCC Suit No. 03 of 2014. Thus, the
plaintiff - respondent was well aware of the
fact that rent was being deposited by the
petitioner - tenant in Misc. Case No. 65 of
2011 and rent for the period from July 2011
to March 2014 was deposited in the said
Misc. Case.

13. According to the plaintiff -
respondent, the notice for eviction was sent
by him to the petitioner - tenant on
13.5.2014 which is said to have been
served upon the petitioner - tenant by
refusal. It is undisputed that in SCC Suit
No. 03 of 2014, the petitioner - tenant, on
the first date of hearing i.e. 25.2.2015, filed
an application / representation 15-Ga2
under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC for depositing
the entire amount of rent and the said
application was allowed by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Ballia by order dated
4.4.2018 and the entire amount of rent for
the period from April 2014 to March 2018
was deposited by the petitioner - tenant
with interest @ 9% within the time granted
by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Ballia.
1888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. From the facts mentioned above,
it was well proved by the petitioner - tenant
that as on the date of institution of SCC
Suit No. 03 of 2014 i.e. on 7.7.2014, the
rent stood deposited upto the month of
March 2014 in Misc. Case No. 65 of 2011.
Thus, as on the date of institution of SCC
Suit No. 03 of 2014 on the ground
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section 2 of
Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972,
the petitioner - tenant was not in arrears of
rent for a period of four months or more.
Therefore,
the
suit
itself
was
not
maintainable. The findings recorded by
both the Courts below on the point of
default in payment of arrears of rent for
more than four months as on the date of
institution of the SCC Suit No. 03 of 2014,
is perverse and contrary to evidences on
record.

15. In Mahmood Khan Vs. IIIrd
Additional District Judge, Ballia & others
(1983) 2 ARC 198 (paragraphs 3 & 4), a
Bench of this Court held as under:-

"3. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties, I am of the opinion that the
impugned order is manifestly unsustainable
in law. As mentioned above, the revisional
court has found the petitioner to be in
arrears only in respect of one month i.e.
July, 1977. That being so it is obvious that
the petitioner was not in arrears for more
than four months when the notice of
demand dated 10.1.1977 was served on him
on 11.1.1977. Section 20(2)(a) was hence
entirely inapplicable even on the facts
found by the revisional court.

4.Coming to the submission made
by the learned counsel for the landlord I
find that there is a fallacy in this
contention.
The
default
contemplated
under Section 20(2)(a) should be in
regard to rent for a period of not less than
four months. The provision does not say
that even if the tenant is in arrears of rent
for less than four months he would be
liable to be evicted under it on the mere
ground that default had continued for
more
than
four
months.
There
is,
therefore, no substance in this submission
made by the learned counsel for the
respondents." (emphasis supplied)

16. In Ram Singh Vs. Abdul Majeed
(2014) 1 ARC 368 (paragraphs 3, 4 & 5), a
Bench of this Court held as under:-

"3. he approach of Revisional
Court is clearly erroneous. The issue was
not with respect to benefit of Section 20 (4)
of Act, 1972, but it was whether there was
any default on the part of petitioner. When
petitioner has validly deposited rent in the
Court under Section 30 (1) of Act, 1972,
the law presumes that such deposit
amounts to payment of rent to landlord
and that being so, there was no default on
the part of petitioner. Hence, SCC Suit
itself, for ejectment of petitioner, was not
maintainable on the ground of default in
payment of rent under Section 20 (2) (a)
of Act, 1972. The question of benefit of
Section 20 (4) of Act, 1972 does not arise.

4. It is not in dispute that both the
Courts below have concurrently held that
the monthly rent of accommodation in
question was Rs. 40/- and upto December,
1999 it was regularly deposited in the
Court under Section 30 (1) of Act, 1972. In
view thereof, the judgment of Revisional
Court cannot sustain.

5. The writ petition is allowed.
Impugned order of Revisional Court dated
18.11.2005 is hereby set aside and the Trial
2 All. Nand Lal Keshari Vs. Shashi Bhushan Agarwal
1889
Court's judgment dated 28.8.1998 is hereby
restored and confirmed."
 (emphasis supplied)

17. In Dr. Babu Ram Sharma Vs.
IVth
Additional
District
Judge,
Saharanpur & others (2006) 2 ARC 239
and Noor Mohd. & another Vs. IVth
Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar
& others (2006) 1 ARC 550, this Court
again took the view that when the entire
rent due till the date of notice had already
been validly deposited under Section 30 of
the Act, the notice of demand was bad in
law, and therefore, since at the time of
notice, tenants were not defaulter in
payment of rent for four months or more,
the Suit filed on the ground of default was
liable to be dismissed. It was held that the
Suit for eviction was not maintainable as at
the time of notice, the tenant was not
defaulter since he had already validly
deposited the rent under Section 30 of the
Act. It was further held that under the
circumstances,
the
Suit
was
not
maintainable under Section 20(2)(a) of the
Act.

18. Learned counsel for the plaintiff -
respondent has relied upon a judgment of
this Court in Vinay Kumar Agarwal Vs.
17th Additional District Judge, Allahabad
(2001) (43) AllLR 700. This judgment does
not support the case of the plaintiffrespondent rather it supports the case of the
petitioner - tenant. In paragraph 11 of the
said judgment, in the case of Vinay Kumar
Agarwal (supra), this Court held as under:-

"11. Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act
clearly provides that a suit for eviction of a
tenant can be filed if the tenant is in arrears
of rent for not less than four months and
has failed to pay the same to the landlord
within one month from the date of service
upon him of a notice of demand. Notice of
demand will be invalid and could not be
considered to be a notice of demand under
the said provision if the tenant was not in
arrears of rent for more than four months.
The tenant could not be held to be a
defaulter in the eye of law if he was not in
arrears of rent for more than four months
on the date of the notice."
 (emphasis supplied)

19. The judgments of this Court in the
case of Arun Kumar & others Vs.
Thakurji Maharaj (2001) (43) AllLR 74,
Mohammad Azim & another Vs. Gopal
Singh (2013) (1) AWC 1023, Ram Kumar
Singh Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge,
Ghaziabad (2003) 1 ARC 294, Haider
Abbas Vs. Additional District Judge &
others in Writ Petition No. 43734 of 2001
decided on 30.11.2005 and the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Ram Vs.
Shakuntala Rani (2005) 7 SCC 211
relating to Delhi Rent Control Act are
distinguishable on facts of the present case.
The aforesaid judgments relied upon by the
plaintiff - respondent are not on the point of
necessary requirement of the ground of
eviction under Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972. The relevant
judgments as well as the provisions itself,
have been well discussed by me in
preceding paragraphs.

20. The default contemplated under
Section 20(2)(a) should be in regard to rent
for a period of not less than four months.
The provision does not say that even if the
tenant is in arrears of rent for less than four
months he would be liable to be evicted
under it on the mere ground that default
had continued for more than four months.
Even notice of demand will be invalid and
could not be considered to be a notice of
demand under the said provision if the
1890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tenant was not in arrears of rent for more
than four months.

21. When petitioner has validly
deposited rent in the Court under Section
30 (1) of Act, 1972, the law presumes that
such deposit amounts to payment of rent
to landlord and that being so, there was
no default on the part of petitioner.
Hence, SCC Suit itself, for ejectment of
petitioner, was not maintainable on the
ground of default in payment of rent
under Section 20 (2) (a) of Act, 1972.

22. For all the reasons aforestated, I
hold that the findings recorded by the
Courts below for arrears of rent for more
than four months as on the date of
institution of SCC Suit No. 03 of 2014, is
perverse and contrary to the documentary
evidences on record. A suit / case on the
ground mentioned in Section 20(2)(a) of
the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for eviction
of a tenant from a building after the
determination of his tenancy may be
instituted if the tenant is in arrears of rent
for not less than four months, and has
failed to pay the same to the landlord
within one month from the date of service
upon him of a notice of demand. Since,
admittedly the rent was deposited upto
the month of March 2014 and the SCC
Suit No. 03 of 2014 was instituted on
7.7.2014, therefore, the petitioner - tenant
was not in arrears of rent for four months
or more as on the date of institution of
the Suit. Therefore, the suit itself was not
maintainable.

23. For all the reasons aforestated, the
impugned judgments and decree dated
5.2.2019 in SCC Suit No. 03 of 2014
passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division),
Ballia
and
the
impugned
judgment dated 29.7.2019 in SCC Revision
No. 01 of 2019 passed by the Court of
District Judge, Ballia are hereby set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.

24. The SCC Suit No. 03 of 2014 is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1890

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 7635 of 2015
(Criminal)

Daya Shankar Upadhyay ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Brajesh Kumar Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Pramod Kumar, Sri Manoj Kumar
Dubey

(A) Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Summon - under Section 195(1)(a)(i) -
Prosecution
for
contempt
of
lawful
authority of public servants, for offences
against public justice and for offences
relating to documents given in evidence -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 177 IPC
- Furnishing false information - complaint
filed by a private person, under Section
195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. as well as Section
177 of IPC - bad in law - summoning
order not sustainable - quashed . (Para-12)

A complaint has been filed by a private person,
under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. for an
offence under Section 177 of IPC - learned Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
has
summoned
the
petitioner under Section 177 IPC.
 (Para3,12)