# No.24393 of 2003 (Murari Lal v. Sri Girwar &

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1617
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-12-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30312 of 2002
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/no-24393-of-2003-murari-lal-v-sri-girwar-42378
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri A.N. Sinha
S.C.

Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction)
Act 1972-Section 20(4)-Benefit claimed
by tenant-on ground on first day of
hearing-deposit of entire amount except
deficit of Rs. 249.65-held-decision of
Apex Court in M.C. Pal available-where
omission caused due to calculation with
result of human error-petitioner before
the Court below placed to deposit entire
amount-failed to availed the benefit-can
not be treated to arithmetical errorcitation
relied
by
petitioner
not
applicable-defence
rightly
strike
offpetition dismissed.

Held: Para-7

In the present case, it was not the case
of petitioners at any point of time that
deficit was on account of any clerical or
calculation mistake. On the contrary,
they have always asserted that this is a
correct amount which ought to have
been deposited and this is what has been
done. Having failed in his attempt in
both the Courts below, where benefit
under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 has
been denied and decree of eviction has
been passed, they have now come to this
Court but here also, in this writ petition,
there is no averment that short deposit
was on account of any clerical or
calculation mistake. This show that due
to deliberate intentional reasons short
deposit was made by asserting that
petitioner was not liable to deposit more
than Rs.8,200/-. Reliance thus placed on
Apex Court's decision in Mam Chand Pal
(supra) has no application to the facts
and circumstances of this case.
Case Law discussed:
2002(3) SCC 49; Writ Petition No.17220 of
1999 (Subhash Chandra Purwar Vs. District
Judge, Mahoba & Anr.) decided on 16.8.2012,
in paras 12 and 13; 2002 (1)ARC 370 (SC);
1982 ARC 734; 1976 ALJ 124; Writ Petition
No.24393 of 2003 (Murari Lal Vs. Sri Girwar &
Ors.) decided on 12.9.2012

## Text

3 All] Suraj Bhan and others V. Addl. District Judge & Others
1617
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30312 of 2002

Suraj Bhan & Others

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. District Judge & Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.C. Nigam
Sri Triveni Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.N. Sinha
S.C.

Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction)
Act 1972-Section 20(4)-Benefit claimed
by tenant-on ground on first day of
hearing-deposit of entire amount except
deficit of Rs. 249.65-held-decision of
Apex Court in M.C. Pal available-where
omission caused due to calculation with
result of human error-petitioner before
the Court below placed to deposit entire
amount-failed to availed the benefit-can
not be treated to arithmetical errorcitation
relied
by
petitioner
not
applicable-defence
rightly
strike
offpetition dismissed.

Held: Para-7

In the present case, it was not the case
of petitioners at any point of time that
deficit was on account of any clerical or
calculation mistake. On the contrary,
they have always asserted that this is a
correct amount which ought to have
been deposited and this is what has been
done. Having failed in his attempt in
both the Courts below, where benefit
under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 has
been denied and decree of eviction has
been passed, they have now come to this
Court but here also, in this writ petition,
there is no averment that short deposit
was on account of any clerical or
calculation mistake. This show that due
to deliberate intentional reasons short
deposit was made by asserting that
petitioner was not liable to deposit more
than Rs.8,200/-. Reliance thus placed on
Apex Court's decision in Mam Chand Pal
(supra) has no application to the facts
and circumstances of this case.
Case Law discussed:
2002(3) SCC 49; Writ Petition No.17220 of
1999 (Subhash Chandra Purwar Vs. District
Judge, Mahoba & Anr.) decided on 16.8.2012,
in paras 12 and 13; 2002 (1)ARC 370 (SC);
1982 ARC 734; 1976 ALJ 124; Writ Petition
No.24393 of 2003 (Murari Lal Vs. Sri Girwar &
Ors.) decided on 12.9.2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.C.Nigam, learned
counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.

2. Admittedly on the first hearing of
the suit petitioners have not deposited
entire amount as contemplated in Section
20(4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,
1972") but against requisite amount of
Rs.8,449.65, the petitioner deposited
Rs.8,200/- on 31.8.1982.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that deficit was only marginal
i.e. Rs.249.65 which is a petty amount for
which petitioner should not have been
made to suffer and in this regard placed
reliance on Apex Court's decision in
Mam Chand Pal Vs. Shanti Agarwal
(Smt.), 2002(3) SCC 49.

4. It is no doubt true that tenant is
under
an
obligation
to
comply
1618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
requirement of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972
in words and spirit and from all four
corners so as to claim its benefits
otherwise he has to fail. But the said
compliance cannot be stretched to the
extent of meeting every i's and dots. In
law, the things are not always considered
with strict principle of mathematics but
human and social aberration, which in
particular are bona fide and sometimes for
the reasons beyond the control of
individuals, always find their weight to
find out whether in a particular case there
is compliance of a particular provision or
not. Construing Section 20(4) of Act,
1972, this Court in Writ Petition
No.17220 of 1999 (Subhash Chandra
Purwar Vs. District Judge, Mahoba &
Anr.) decided on 16.8.2012, in paras 12
and 13, said as under:

"12. The compliance of Section 20(4)
in order to call for its benefit is mandatory
in words and substance but it cannot be
stretched to an extent of hyper technicality
and conceiving every situation for which
the tenant is not responsible yet to hold
him guilty of non-compliance. Law does
not contemplate compliance of something
to the extent of impossibility. It is in this
context the Courts have observed that a
substantial and virtual compliance would
be deemed to be sufficient instead of
sticking to every i's and dots. In taking the
view, I find support from Apex Court's
decision in Mam Chand Pal Vs. Smt.
Shanti Agarwal, 2002(1) ARC 370 (SC).
Considering Section 20(4) the Court
observed "While considering the import of
such provisions, it may have to be seen that
the requirement of law is substantially and
virtually
stands
satisfied.
A
highly
technical view of the matter will have no
place in construing compliance of such a
provision. We may, however, hasten to add
that it is not intended to lay down that non
compliance of any of the requirements of
the provision in question is permissible. All
the dues and amounts liable to be paid
have undoubtedly to be paid or deposited
on the date of first hearing but within that
framework
virtual
and
substantial
compliance may suffice without sticking to
mere technicalities of law." (Para 11)
(emphasis added)

13. In the context of a petty shortage,
a Division Bench of this Court in Amar
Nath Agarwal Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge
and others 1982 ARC 734 affirmed this
Court's decision in Dinesh Chandra
Gupta Vs. Kashi Nath Seth, 1976 ALJ
124 that the rule of deminimis can be
applied to a case of such petty shortfall.
Though the above judgment was in respect
to a question if there is a very small or
trifling shortfall, principle of deminimis
can be brought into aid or not. In this
matter it is not the question of shortfall but
actual payment made after two days from
the date of first hearing but applying the
above principle particularly when reason
for actual payment is not attributable to
tenant but to the procedural delay taken
before the Court below, the tenant cannot
be made to suffer. Therefore actual
payment made by him on 24th August,
1995 would relate back to the date on
which
he
rendered
Tender
seeking
permission of the Court for making
payment i.e. 22.8.1995."

5. This has been followed in Writ
Petition No.24393 of 2003 (Murari Lal
Vs. Sri Girwar & Ors.) decided on
12.9.2012.

6. The dictum laid down therein can
always apply where tenant has also come
out with a specific case and pleading that
3 All] Pragi Lal V. State of U.P. and others
1619
mistake in short deposit of amount was
not deliberate and intentional but there
was some calculation mistake or there
was some human error or something like
that. In other words, dictum laid down in
Mam Chand Pal (supra), as discussed
above, is attracted where petty shortfall is
not attributable to a deliberate mischief on
the part of tenant but for something over
which he has no control or otherwise bona
fide.

7. In the present case, it was not the
case of petitioners at any point of time
that deficit was on account of any clerical
or calculation mistake. On the contrary,
they have always asserted that this is a
correct amount which ought to have been
deposited and this is what has been done.
Having failed in his attempt in both the
Courts below, where benefit under
Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 has been
denied and decree of eviction has been
passed, they have now come to this Court
but here also, in this writ petition, there is
no averment that short deposit was on
account of any clerical or calculation
mistake. This show that due to deliberate
intentional reasons short deposit was
made by asserting that petitioner was not
liable to deposit more than Rs.8,200/-.
Reliance thus placed on Apex Court's
decision in Mam Chand Pal (supra) has
no
application
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case.

8. In view of the above, I find no
merit in the writ petition.

9. Dismissed.

10. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
---------

 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34824 of 2012

Pragi Lal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.S. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri J.N. Maurya
Sri Yashwant Verma
Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava

U.P. Government Servants (Disciplinary
and Appeal Rules 1999, Rule -4)-earlier
suspension
order
revoked-second
suspension for same allegation for such
charges-no major punishment could be
awarded-held-subsequent
suspension
without
application
of
mind-no
mechanical
arbitrary
exercise
permissible-order quashed with cost of
Rs. 25,000

Held: Para-18

In view of above, both the writ petitions
are allowed. The impugned orders of
suspension dated 23.06.2012 are hereby
quashed. The petitioner is also entitled
to cost, which I quantify to Rs. 25,000/-
for each set of writ petitions, against the
respondents with further direction that
after payment of cost to petitioner(s) by
respondent no. 1, it shall have liberty to
recover the said amount from official
concerned
who
held
the
office
of
respondent no. 3 at the relevant time
when impugned orders of suspension
were passed, after making such inquiry
as
permissible
in
law.
I
am
also
constrained
to
direct
the
Principal