Anandi Devi v. Om Prakash .

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant filed an application for eviction of the respondent-tenant under Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The First Additional District Judge, Ballia, found that the respondent’s deposit of rent arrears (covering 27 January 1972 to 26 August 1972) was invalid under Section 13(2) of the Act, yet declined to order eviction. On further appeal, the High Court declined to interfere with the District Judge’s order and provided no reasons for doing so. The present appeal challenges both the High Court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction and the District Judge’s denial of eviction despite the respondent’s non-compliance with statutory deposit requirements.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court erred in refusing, without reasons, to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the order of the First Additional District Judge.
2. Whether the respondent-tenant’s failure to make a valid deposit of rent arrears under Section 13(2) of the Act and to comply with Order 15 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandated striking off the defence and decreeing eviction under Section 20(2)(a).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that the High Court abdicated its jurisdiction by dismissing the revision without furnishing any reasons. It agreed with the First Additional District Judge’s factual finding that the respondent’s deposit of arrears was invalid under Section 13(2) of the Act. However, it found the District Judge erred in law by nevertheless refusing eviction. Under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, the respondent was obliged to deposit the arrears along with interest and costs; failure to do so warranted striking off the defence. Once the defence was liable to be struck off, Section 22(a) of the Act required that the eviction suit be decreed. Consequently, both the High Court’s order and the District Judge’s order were unsustainable.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed and a decree for eviction is granted under Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. The decree for arrears of rent passed by the District Judge is affirmed. The respondent is granted four months to vacate the premises, conditional on filing the usual undertaking within four weeks. No order as to costs.

Implications: The decision enforces strict compliance with statutory deposit requirements and reaffirms that failure to do so leads to striking off the defence and decreeing eviction. It sets no new precedent but underscores the supervisory duty of High Courts to provide reasons when declining to interfere with lower-court orders.