On receipt of the finding on reference the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated November 11, 1982 allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the appellate authority and granted decree of eviction.
for getting the advantage of the rule of de minimis.
Writ Petition No.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
A sum of Rs 104 was number deposited due to bona fide mistake of calculation.
9296 of 1979 was available, Ram Lal instead filed a writ petition in the High Court under Article 227 in Civil Misc.
Though alternative remedy From the Judgment and Order dated November 11, 1989 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
The trial companyrt decreed ejectment, but on revision, the District Judge held that the appellant had substantially companyplied with Section 39.
Ram Lal initiated action for ejectment of the appellant in the Court of Small Causes District Munsif , Saharanpur under the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947.
The appellant tenant had the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs 40 from Ram Lal, the landlord.
As on date a sum of Rs 2048 was due.
July 15, 1972.
Due to error in calculation a sum of Rs 1944 was deposited within one month, leaving a deficit of Rs 104.
Suit Petition No.
On the facts in this case, the Division Bench companycluded that We have numbered that the total amount which the tenant was required to deposit was Rs 1944 Rs 2048 and there was a deficiency of Rs 104.
Pending proceedings this Act was repealed and U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972, for short the Act came into force w.e.f.
The amount of Rs 104 was number a small sum which companyld qualify the requirement of getting the benefit of rule of de minimis.
