Notice upon respondent no.6 was served as per Certificate of Service received from the High Court. Respondent nos.7 to 11 have refused to accept the notice and, therefore, notices have been affixed at their residence. 3 Assailing the decree of ejectment, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a short point – whether in view of deposit of Rs.8910/- made by the defendant/appellant towards arrears of rent, interest and costs of the suit, vide application dated 21 October 1978 (Annexure P2), the appellant/tenant was entitled to protection against eviction in light of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 We find that the trial court framed Issue No.6 as regards entitlement of the defendant/appellant to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20. While returning a finding on Issue No.6, though the trial court accepted that an amount of Rs.8910/- towards arrears of rent, interest and costs of the suit was deposited by the defendant/tenant before filing the written statement but held the said deposit not unconditional as in the written statement, the defendant pleaded the rate of rent as Rs.45/- per month, which, ultimately, was found to be Rs.150/- per month. Act and the courts below were not justified in denying its benefit to the appellant/tenant only on the ground that the plea taken by him with regard to the rate of rent was found incorrect.
For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High Court to the extent it affirms the decree of eviction is set-aside.
Case Title: SHANTI PRASAD (D) THR. LRS. Vs. THAKUR DASS (D) THR. LRS. (2023 INSC 185)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005981-005981 / 2014
