# Singh v. Additional

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 165
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-11-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39963 of 2001
- **Bench:** A.K. Yog
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/singh-v-additional-39458
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 -
cost of suit- what includes-amount of
court fee 1⁄2 counsel fee on a contested
side-amount of court fee payable on the
basis of rate of rent.

Held- Para 9

The question for consideration of this
court is as to whether the cost of suit,
apart from others include (i) actual
amount of court fee paid by the plaintiff,
and (ii) 1⁄2 counsel fee on a contested
suit (as submitted by the learned counsel
for the land lord-respondent) or the
amount of court fee which would have
been payable on the basis of the rate or
rent pleaded by the Defendant in the
written statement (and, after parties
have lead evidence, court finally found to
be correct).
Case law discussed:
1981 ARC-502
1981 ALS-26
1981 (7) ALR-225
1986 ARC-195
1996 (2)-188
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
166

## Text

1All] Kari Naimuddin V. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and others
165
interfere with the order and directed the
revisional Court to decide the revision
expeditiously. Secondly, the alternative
remedy by way of revision is available to
the petitioner. The petitioner having not
exhausted
the
alternative
remedy
approached this Court straight away,
therefore, the present petition is also
legally not maintainable on the ground of
availability
of
alternative
remedy.
Thirdly, the proceedings under Sections
33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are
summary in nature. The title of the parties
to the property in dispute is not decided in
the said proceedings. It is well settled in
law that against the order passed under
Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act, a petition under Article 226 of the
constitution of India is legally not
maintainable. A reference in this regard
may be made to the decisions of this court
in
Narain
Singh
Vs.
Additional
commissioner,
Meerut
and
others,
reported in (1999) 2 CRC page 342;
Brahma Deo and others Vs. Board of
Revenue, U.P. and others, reported in
1986 R.D. page 302 and Jai Pal Singh Vs.
Board of Revenue and others, reported in
1956 A.W.R. 518.

6. For the facts and reasons given
above, the present petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD DECEMBER 05, 2001

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39963 of 2001

Gopal Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
Special Judge (Anti corruption)/A.D.J.,
Varanasi and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Faheem Ahmad
S.C.

U.P. Urban Building (Regulations of
Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 -
cost of suit- what includes-amount of
court fee 1⁄2 counsel fee on a contested
side-amount of court fee payable on the
basis of rate of rent.

Held- Para 9

The question for consideration of this
court is as to whether the cost of suit,
apart from others include (i) actual
amount of court fee paid by the plaintiff,
and (ii) 1⁄2 counsel fee on a contested
suit (as submitted by the learned counsel
for the land lord-respondent) or the
amount of court fee which would have
been payable on the basis of the rate or
rent pleaded by the Defendant in the
written statement (and, after parties
have lead evidence, court finally found to
be correct).
Case law discussed:
1981 ARC-502
1981 ALS-26
1981 (7) ALR-225
1986 ARC-195
1996 (2)-188
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
166
(Delivered by Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Faheem Ahmad, Advocate on behalf of
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 and perused the
record.

2. Gopal Yadav, tenant-petitioner,
has approached this court by filing present
writ
petition
under
Article
226,
Constitution of India, seeking to challenge
judgment and order dated August 22,
2001 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition)
passed in SCC Revision no. 17 of 1999
passed
by
Additional
District
and
Sessions
Judge
Varanasi
exercising
Revisional jurisdiction under Section 25.
Provincial small Causes Court Act,
whereby the revision filed by landlordplaintiff/Respondent nos.2 and 3 was
allowed the judgment and order dated
30.1.1999 passed by Judge Small Causes
Court in J.S.C.C. Suit no. 18 of 1987
(Naseem Ahmad Versus Gopal Yadav)
was modified and the said suit was
dismissed to the extent of the relief sought
by the plaintiff for evicting the tenantpetitioner
(Annexure-4
to
the
Writ
Petition).

3. The tenant-petitioner had earlier
filed writ petition no. 4587 of 2001
(Gopal Yadav versus Special Judge
(A.C.) / Additional District and Sessions
Judge Varanasi-(exercising powers of
revisional
court
under
Section
25,
Provincial Small Causes Court Act)
against the Revisional judgment and order
dated 4.11.2000. This Writ Petition was
allowed by this court vide judgment and
order dated 12.2.2001 with the direction
to the revisional court to decide afresh
specifying separately different heads
under which deposit is to be made
towards `cost of the suit' contemplated
under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act. 1972 U.P. Act No.
XIII of 1972 (for short called `the Act').
The revisional court in compliance to the
said judgment and order 12.2.2001
decided the revision afresh the present
impugned judgment and order dated
22.8.2001 (Annexure-1 to the Writ
Petition).

4. The petitioner has annexed copies
of the charts-submitted by the Tenant
(Petitioner) and the landlord (contesting
respondent)
indicating
the
amount
required and deposited according to them
under Section 20 (4) of the Act (Annexure
VI and VII respectively).

5. Comparing these two charts
annexed with the writ petition it is clear
that there is no dispute about the amount
of rent due for 18 months (1.7.1983 to
30.4.1988) @ Rs. 15/- per month. Both
the plaintiff-landlord and the defendanttenant have shown it as Rs. 870/-. The
defendant-tenant (Petitioner) in his chart
has shown, under the Head of `cost of
suit' claims to deposit of certain amounts
in lieu of towards court fee, lawyers fee,
process fee and registry (postage charges).
The said chart does not include or refer to
the amount for expenses incurred by the
landlord towards Stamp on Vakalatnama,
the clerkage and the typing charges.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
attempted to demonstrate that the amount
of interest deposited by the tenant was
short by a very-very thin margin i.e. Rs.
7.48 only and that certain amounts, like
clerkage and typing charges, were not
required to be deposited by the tenant as
costs
of
the
suit
under
law.
1All] Gopal Yadav V. Special Judge(Anti Corruption)/A.D.J., Varanasi and others
167
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has failed to dispute the proposition that
`Cost of Suit' shall include `Court fee'
paid by the plaintiff and lawyers 1⁄2 fee on
contested side.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
however, submitted that the amount of
court fee required to be deposited under
section 20(4) of the Act ought to be the
amount of court fee which would have
been payable on the basis of amount of
rent claimed by the defendant as also
subsequently found to be correct by both
the courts below and not the actual
amount of court fee paid by the plaintifflandlord as per his pleadings and the
reliefs claimed by him.

9. The question for consideration of
this court is as to whether, the `cost of
suit', apart from others include (i) actual
amount of court fee paid by the plaintiff,
and (ii) 1⁄2 counsel fee on a contested suit
(as submitted by the learned counsel for
the landlord-respondent) or the amount of
court fee which would have been payable
on the basis of the `rate of rent' pleaded
by the Defendant in the written statement
(and, after parties have lead evidence,
court finally found to be correct).

10. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has referred to the case of
Lakshmi Narain Sharma versus Arjun
Deo
Dhawan
and
others,
1981
Allahabad Rent Cases 502 (Hon'ble
N.D. Ojha, J.) wherein the court had an
occasion to consider the meaning, extent
and scope of the expression `amount of
rent due from him'. The court had no
opportunity to consider the question now
posed before it in the present case and
referred to above. The tenant shall run a
risk of being deprived of protection of the
Section 20(4) of the Act.

11. Para 3 and 4 of the Judgment in
the case of Lakshmi Narain Sharma's for
convenience, reproduced-

"3. Having heard counsel for the
parties, I am of the (sic) submission made
by counsel for respondent no.1 is well
founded. Two requirements of section
20(4) of the Act are of significance. One
is that the payment, tender or deposit of
the amount mentioned in the said subsection has to be made by a tenant
"Unconditionally" and the other is that
what is to be deposited by the tenant is to
be amount "due from him". In this
connection it would be useful to refer to
sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Act
which reads as follows:

(6) Any Amount deposited by the
tenant under sub-section (4) or under Rule
5 of Order XV of the First Schedule to the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall be
paid to the landlord forthwith on his
application without prejudice to the
parties' pleadings and subject to the
ultimate decision in the suit."

12. To me it appears that the
purpose of sub-section (4) and (6) of S. 20
read together is that whatsoever amount
was due from the tenant according to him
has to be deposited unconditionally so
that the said amount may be paid to the
landlord forthwith. If in regard to a
particular item mentioned in section 20(4)
there was a dispute, it was open to the
tenant to deposit such amount which
according to him was due from him and
not necessarily the amount claimed by the
landlord. In respect of such a deposit if
ultimately the benefit of Section 20(4) of
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
168
the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the
deposit made by him was not of the whole
amount claimed by the landlord, because
the amount deposited by him would in
view of the finding recorded in the suit
represent the amount due from the tenant.
If on other hand, his defence is found to
be false and the amount claimed by the
landlord is found to be correct, the tenant
would be denied the benefit of sub-section
(4) notwithstanding the deposit of the
lesser amount which he may have made
under Section 20(4) of the Act. In Har
Prasad versus Dharma Deo, 1981 ALJ
216: 1981 Alld. Rent Cases 26, it has
been held that (at p. 217): (at p. 26 of
Alld. Rent Cases).

13. "The test that seems to have
been laid down by the Supreme Court as
well as by the learned Single Judge, in the
cases relied upon by the respondent, is
that the money deposited should be
readily available to the landlord. A
reading Original Suit (sic) sub-section (4)
of Section 20 leads to the same
conclusion. It waives ejectment. "if the
tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to
the landlord or deposits in court the entire
amount of rent and damage for use and
occupation of the building". It is clear that
the amount has to be paid to landlord or at
least to be tendered to him or it has to be
deposited in the court, Sub-section (6) of
Section 20 lays down that if any amount
has been deposited by tenant either under
sub-section (4) of that section or under
Rule 5 of Order 15 C.P.C. that has to be
paid to the landlord without prejudice to
the parties pleadings and subject to the
ultimate decision of the suit. The amounts
so deposited are certainly available to the
landlord as soon as the deposit is made."

14. As is apparent on the plain
language of sub-section (4) of section 20
of the Act it contemplates payment,
tender or deposit not only of the amount
of rent due but also damages for use and
occupation of the building calculated at
the same rate as rent and payable up to the
date on which the deposit under the said
sub-section is made. The petitioner at no
point of time seems to have disputed his
liability to pay damages at the rate of Rs.
8 p.m. which was the admitted rate of
rent, from the date of the institution of the
suit till the date of the deposit under
section 20 (4) of the Act. Consequently
the said amount was admittedly due from
him. He no doubt deposited this amount
but attached a condition even in regard to
this amount that the same may be kept in
deposit meaning thereby that the same
may not be paid to the landlord
respondent no. 1 till the suit was finally
decided. The deposit even of the admitted
amount of damages as such was not made
by the petitioner unconditionally even
though it was due from him. Further even
in regard to the arrears of rent claimed by
the landlord in the notice of demand, the
finding recorded by the authorities below
is that the petitioner had failed to
substantiate his defence that he had paid
the said amount to the Munim of the
respondent
no.1.
The
precondition
attached by the petitioner that the said
amount may be kept in deposit till the suit
was decided was, therefore, even in
regard to this amount not justified. For all
these reasons I am of the view that the
respondent no.2 and 3 cannot be said to
have committed either any manifest error
of law or error of jurisdiction in taking the
view that the deposit made by the
petitioner
had
not
been
made
unconditionally
as
contemplated
by
Section 20(4) of the Act and that he was
1All] Gopal Yadav V. Special Judge(Anti Corruption)/A.D.J., Varanasi and others
169
consequently not entitled to the benefit of
the said sub-section in the matter of
passing a decree for eviction against him."

15. As noted above, the aforesaid
decision does not deal with the question
in hand.

16. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also referred to the following
decisions. Relevant extracts/passages, for
convenience quoted.
1. 1981 (7) ALR 225 - Rama Kant
versus
Surya
Nath
Nagar
(para)
Hon'ble S.D. Agarwal, J.)

"......The question as to whether a
tenant is entitled to the benefit of Subclause (4) and whether he should be
relieved from his liability for eviction has
to be considered, after the court on
examining the evidence on record, comes
to the conclusion that the amount legally
due has been paid, tendered or deposited
by the tenant as prescribed by sub-clause
(4) of Section 20 of the Act......The court
has to decide the question of the
applicability of Section 20, sub-clause (4)
of the Act only after the evidence has
been recorded in a case where there is a
dispute in regard to the rate of rent and
then only after determining the rate could
further determine whether the benefit can
be given or not under sub-clause (4) of the
Act. The Court has to record a finding as
to what was the rate of rent and then only
determine whether the benefit of subclause (4) could be given to the tenant or
not.
The
above
intention
of
the
Legislature
is
clear
from
another
provision, namely, Order 15, Rule 5
C.P.C. added by the State of U.P. in
relation to striking off defence for nondeposit of admitted rent..."

17. Under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C.
the tenant is obliged to deposit only the
rent admitted by him to be due. This
means that even if the landlord claims a
higher amount of rent the tenant is liable
to deposit such rent as has been admitted
by him in the written statement to be due.
Once he deposits that amount his defence
can not be struck off. Under this
provision, however, no adjudication is
necessary by the Court on the basis of
evidence, neither any evidence need be
recorded for determining the question
whether the defence should be struck off
or not. If the tenant deposits the admitted
rent as stated in the written statement then
his defence can not be struck off.

18. The specific words used in Order
15 Rule 5 C.P.C. "admitted by him to be
due" indicates that in the absence of such
words in clause (4) of Section 20 of the
Act it was not intended that the tenant was
obliged only to deposit the rent at the
admitted rate. In my opinion what has to
be deposited under sub-clause (4) of
Section 20 of the Act is what is legally
due from the tenant and then only he can
be relieved of the liability for eviction
against him. If the landlord claims more
amount then what was due it need not be
deposited by the tenant

19. (2) 1986 (1) ARC 195-Kachan
Singh versus Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Dehradun and another,
(K.C. Agarwal, J.)
"3......On the first date of hearing,
the petitioner deposited the sum of Rs.
530/-. The details of the deposit, as
mentioned by the petitioner himself were
as follows:-
(a) Rent demanded--------
(b) Interest -----------
(c) Cost of the suit---------
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
170
(d) Counsel's half fee------
---------------------------------
(8)
Next
comes
the
question
of
compliance of sub-section (4) of Section
20 of the Act.....In the counter affidavit,
the break up given by respondent no. 2 is
of the following items :
(a) Court fee paid on the plaint......
(b) Rent and damages.......
(c) Cost of notice;
(d) Interest of 9 per cent per annum on
item (b)........
(e) Counsel fee
(f) Cost of Regd. A/D envelope meant
for service of summons:
(g) Process fee
(h) Court Fee paid on 5-C2
(i) Court fee paid on 6-C2;
(j) Court fee paid on 7-C 2
(k) Typing charges of plaint and copies
and application
...................................................
........................
10. Respondent 2 had claimed the cost of
the notice in the suit. There was no
specific denial to this para in the written
statement. That apart, the question is as to
what is the amount which the tenant will
be obliged to deposit under sub section
(4) of Section 20 in order to avail the
benefit conferred by it. The liability upon
tenant is to deposit the landlord's costs of
the suit.............If a tenant wants to get
the benefit, he has to deposit the amount
claimed by the landlord, unless it is
demonstrated that any one of the items
made in the suit were frivolous or wholly
unfounded. If that is not done the tenant
would not be entitled to get the benefit of
sub section (4) of section 20. The
legislature
did
not
intend
to
any
adjudication by the landlord * (to be read
as Court*) at the first date of hearing. The
provision was made for the benefit of the
tenant, and to give another opportunity to
save his tenancy. If the tenancy. If the
tenant wants to save his tenancy he will
have to deposit the amount claimed in the
suit but if the amount is frivolous the
tenant may not be denied of the benefit of
sub section (4) of Section 20 on the
ground of having not deposited the
amount. But where, as here the cost of the
notice was Rs. 50/- and nothing could be
shown to me that it was frivolous amount,
non-deposit of the same appears to me is
fatal to the petitioner. The expression
"landlord's cost in respect thereof" would
include the cost of the notice also. Apart
from the aforesaid item of Rs. 50/- the
defendant further did not deposit the item
claimed by the plaintiff respondent 2 as
item nos. (f) to (k) in the judgment. Even
the amount of interest deposited was
deficient by Rs. 3.48. In this view the
deposits made by the defendant could not
confer upon him the benefit of subsection
(4) of Section 20 (emphasis laid by me on
underlined portion.).

20. (3) 1996(2) ARC 188 - Sardar
Amrik Singh Versus IVth Additional
District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and
others (Sudhir Narain, J.)

"5. ......The second submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the petitioner had deposited the entire
arrears of rent with cost etc. prior to the
first date of hearing and was entitled to
the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972 ......He has
given the details of the amount which he
was required to deposit under Section
20(4) of the Act......... The trail court
held that the amount deposited by the
petitioner was conditionally one and
therefore he was not entitled to the benefit
of the deposit made by him under Section
1All] Gopal Yadav V. Special Judge(Anti Corruption)/A.D.J., Varanasi and others
171
20(4) of the Act. The petitioner in his
written statement has stated that the rate
of rent was Rs. 175/- per month and not
Rs. 300/- per month as claimed by the
plaintiff. He in the written statement,
however, did not state that he had
deposited amount under Section 20(4) of
the Act conditionally.

6.
In
paragraphs
15
to
45
he
categorically stated that after service of
summons on him, he deposited entire
amount in the court before first date of
hearing and is entitled to get benefit of
section 20(4) of the Act.........The
Petitioner had deposited rent for the
period 1.10.1985 to 31.8.1988 as claimed
in the suit as the rate of Rs. 300.00 per
month. The view taken by respondents
nos. 1 and 2 that the Petitioner had
deposited the rent at the rate of Rs. 300.00
per month conditionally is not correct.

7.
Learned counsel for the Respondent
then urged that the cost of the suit was not
correctly included by the Petitioner. Cost
of the suit should be taken as given in the
decree after it is passed by the court. This
contention of learned counsel for the
Respondent is not correct. Clause (b) of
explanation added to sub section (4) of
Section 20 of the Act provides that the
expression........."cost
of
the
suit"
includes one half of the amount of
counsel's fee taxable for a contested suit.
Cost of the suit will be such as the
plaintiff might have incurred by the date
of first hearing which includes court fee.
Counsel's fee and other expenses incurred
by the plaintiff...... (underlined by me to
lay emphasis)

(4) 1980 ALJ 384 - Kailash Chandra
Nigam
versus
Smt.
Gayatri
Devi
(Hon'ble N.D. Ojha, J.)

"3. The only point which has been
urged by the counsel for the applicant in
support of this revision is that the
applicant was not required to deposit costs
of the suit insofar as the relief for arrears
of rent and damages was concerned.
According to counsel for the applicant.
Section 20(4) contemplates deposit of
only such costs which had been incurred
by the plaintiff-landlord on the relief for
eviction only.

4......Considerable
emphasis
is
placed by the counsel for the applicant on
the circumstances that in the opening para
of Section 20(4) the words used are : "in
any suit for eviction" and not in any suit
for
eviction,
arrears
of
rent
and
damages."......... The expression "cost of
suit" has been defined in Explanation (b)
of Section 20(4). According to that
definition this expression includes onehalf of the amount of counsel's fee taxable
for a contested suit. The cost of the suit
contemplated by Section 20 (4) would,
therefore, be half of the amount of
counsel's fee taxable for a contested suit
plus the amount of court fee paid by the
plaintiff and as such other cost as he may
have incurred up to the date of the first
hearing of the suit. What Section 20 (4) of
the Act contemplates is that if the entire
amount of the rent and damages for use
and occupation of the building due from
him together with interest thereon at the
rate of nine per cent per annum and the
landlords' costs of the suit in respect
section 30 (1) of the Act is paid or
deposited by him at the first hearing of the
suit, the tenant was entitled to an order
relieving
him
against
his
suit
for
ejectment as well as arrears of rent and
damages on account of the conduct of the
tenent in not complying with the notice of
demand, there appears to be no reason to
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
172
hold that the legislature contemplated
deposit of only such amount towards the
item of court-fee paid by the plaintiff
which was payable on the relief of
eviction only and not that portion thereof
which was payable for the relief of rent
and damages (underlined by me to lay
emphasis).

5...Consequently I am of the opinion
that the expression `cost of the suit in
respect thereof, used in Section 20 (4) of
the Act includes the amount of court-fees
paid by the plaintiff not only on the relief
for eviction but also on the relief for
arrears of rent and damages."

21. I find no relevance of the
aforesaid decisions as the court had no
occasion to consider the question in the
light of the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner in the present
case. However, the underlined passages in
the aforequoted passages of the above
decisions `suggest' an answer against the
contention of the petitioner.

Section 20(4) of the Act reads:

"In any suit for eviction on the
ground mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (2), if at the first hearing of the
suit the tenant unconditionally pays or
[tenders to the landlord or deposits in
court] the entire amount of rent and
damages for use and occupation of the
building due from him (such damages for
use and occupation being calculated at the
same rate as rent) together with interest
thereon at the rate of nine per cent annum
and the landlord's costs of the suit in
respect thereof, after deducting therefrom
any amount already deposited by the
tenant under sub-section (1) of Section
30, the court may, in lieu of passing a
decree for eviction on that ground, pass an
order relieving the tenant against his
liability for eviction on that ground.

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply in relation to a tenant
who or any member of whose family has
built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant
state, or has got vacated after acquisition
any residential building in the same city,
municipality, notified are a or town area.

[Explanation. - For the purpose of
this sub-section-
(a) the expression "first hearing" means
the first date for any step or proceeding
mentioned in the summons served on the
defendant;
(b) the expression "cost of the suit"
includes one-half of the amount of
counsel's fee taxable for a contested suit.]
The relevant portion of Section 20(4)
of the Act has been underlined:

22. The legislature has used the
expression "......Landlord's costs of the
suit....." and that it avoided to use
expression "which would have been
finally found payable" or "which should
have been finally found to be payable on
the reliefs granted by the Court".

23. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the aforesaid
provision is beneficial piece of legislation
to confer benefit upon the tenant and it
should be interpreted accordingly.

24. In my considered opinion
aforesaid aimed to confer provision is not
solely benefit upon `tenant' only but to
confer benefit upon both landlord and
tenant. Secondly this court cannot do
violence with a given statutory provision
while interpreting it and particularly when
there is no for ambiguity in the language
requiring interpretation.
1All] Sunil V. District Magistrate, Bijnor and others
173
25. Perusal of the impugned
judgment and order, with reference to the
charts annexed with the writ petition as
Annexure 6 and 7 to the writ petition
clearly show that considerable amount of
Court fee as well as half lawyer's fee on
taxable side and clerkage have not been
deposited by the tenant-petitioner.

26. It is abundantly clear that tenant
has not deposited the required amount
towards "landlords" costs of the suit
contemplated under Section 20(4) of the
Act and, therefore, he cannot claim
benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act and
protect himself from eviction from the
accommodation in question.

27. In view of the above, I find no
manifest error apparent on the face of
record in the impugned judgment and
order dated 22.8.2001 (Annexure-1 to the
Writ Petition) passed by special Judge
(Anti-Corruption) Additional District and
Session Judge, Varanasi/Respondent no.
1. Petition lacks merit.

Consequently,
Writ
Petition
is,
accordingly, dismissed.

No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JANUARY 7, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24325 Of 2001

Sunil

...Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate, Bijnor and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anurag Khanna
Sri D.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri S.M. Misra
A.G.A.

Constitution of India, Article 226, Art 21-
Habeas
Corpus
Petitions
detention
order-confined
for
period
of
yearchallenged made-petitions pending for
the last more and more year-almost
become infructuous by efflux of timecourt expressed its great concern-about
shortage
of
judges-constitutional
authorities equally responsible for delay
in appointment of judges.

Held - Para 6

The
Supreme
Court
in the Second
Judge's case, Supreme Court Advocates
on Record Association Vs. Union of India
AIR 1994 SC 268 observed that since the
date of retirement of a High Court Judge
is known the entire process of filling in
the vacancy to be caused by the
retirement should be completed before
one month of the date of the retirement
so that on the very next day after the
retirement the new appointee can start
functioning and in this way the work of
the court does not suffer. This was the
regular practice during British days and
for
some
time
after
Independence.
However it appears that a complete go
by has been given to the aforesaid nine
Judges decision of the Supreme Court,
and the plight of this court is a glaring
example of this. Some times 300 cases
are listed before a Judge and it is
physically impossible that a Judge can
decide 300 cases in one day. We are
informed that some other High Courts
also are in similar plight because the
vacancy of the Judges have not been
filled in. We earnestly request the
Constitutional authorities concerned in
the selection and appointment of High
Court Judges to take the matter in all
seriousness and promptitude realizing