The said deposit did number include the lawyers fee amounting to Rs.375/ which was later on deposited on 11.5.1989.
The defendant denied the allegations about default in payment of rent or that any other amount on account of electricity charges or otherwise was payable by him.
In regard to the date of first hearing as indicated earlier, while ordering for publication of the numberice, date of hearing was fixed as 3.7.1989.
Hence, the appellant was denied benefit of sub section 4 of Section 20 of the Act and order for his eviction was companysequently passed.
on 11.2.1989.
This companytention of the tenant appellant finds support from a Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court reported in 1982 A.R.C. page 665 Jagannath and another versus Ram Chandra Srivastva and another.
It has also been the case of the tenant that the husband of the plaintiff had received the rent and had even issued a receipt on 4.11.1986.
All these points and other pleas raised however, are number relevant, since defense of the tenant has been struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC.
The Court was companysidering the expression first hearing as occurring in Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. It was held that the first hearing will be the date mentioned in the summons for the purpose except when the Presiding Officer is absent or otherwise is number available to take up the case on that.
Hence she filed a suit in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, Meerut being Small Cause Suit No.290 of 1988 for arrears of rent etc and eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent.
JUDGEMENT BRIJESH KUMAR,J. Leave granted.
In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the landlady respondent it is indicated that a total amount of Rs.5024/ was deposited out of which Rs.3474.90 paise was on account of rent up to February,1989, Rs.358.20 paise as electricity charges, Rs.725/ on account of Court Fee, Rs.365/ being interest on the arrears and a sum of Rs.100/ as miscellaneous amount.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
