1. Heard Sri A.C.Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. Admittedly on the first hearing of the suit petitioners have not deposited entire amount as contemplated in Section 20(4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") but against requisite amount of Rs.8,449.65, the petitioner deposited Rs.8,200/- on 31.8.1982.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that deficit was only marginal i.e. Rs.249.65 which is a petty amount for which petitioner should not have been made to suffer and in this regard placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in Mam Chand Pal Vs. Shanti Agarwal (Smt.), 2002(3) SCC 49.
4. It is no doubt true that tenant is under an obligation to comply requirement of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 in words and spirit and from all four corners so as to claim its benefits otherwise he has to fail. But the said compliance cannot be stretched to the extent of meeting every i's and dots. In law, the things are not always considered with strict principle of mathematics but human and social aberration, which in particular are bona fide and sometimes for the reasons beyond the control of individuals, always find their weight to find out whether in a particular case there is compliance of a particular provision or not. Construing Section 20(4) of Act, 1972, this Court in Writ Petition No.17220 of 1999 (Subhash Chandra Purwar Vs. District Judge, Mahoba & Anr.) decided on 16.8.2012, in paras 12 and 13, said as under:
"12. The compliance of Section 20(4) in order to call for its benefit is mandatory in words and substance but it cannot be stretched to an extent of hyper technicality and conceiving every situation for which the tenant is not responsible yet to hold him guilty of non-compliance. Law does not contemplate compliance of something to the extent of impossibility. It is in this context the Courts have observed that a substantial and virtual compliance would be deemed to be sufficient instead of sticking to every i's and dots. In taking the view, I find support from Apex Court's decision in Mam Chand Pal Vs. Smt. Shanti Agarwal, 2002(1) ARC 370 (SC). Considering Section 20(4) the Court observed "While considering the import of such provisions, it may have to be seen that the requirement of law is substantially and virtually stands satisfied. A highly technical view of the matter will have no place in construing compliance of such a provision. We may, however, hasten to add that it is not intended to lay down that non compliance of any of the requirements of the provision in question is permissible. All the dues and amounts liable to be paid have undoubtedly to be paid or deposited on the date of first hearing but within that framework virtual and substantial compliance may suffice without sticking to mere technicalities of law." (Para 11) (emphasis added)
13. In the context of a petty shortage, a Division Bench of this Court in Amar Nath Agarwal Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge and others 1982 ARC 734 affirmed this Court's decision in Dinesh Chandra Gupta Vs. Kashi Nath Seth, 1976 ALJ 124 that the rule of deminimis can be applied to a case of such petty shortfall. Though the above judgment was in respect to a question if there is a very small or trifling shortfall, principle of deminimis can be brought into aid or not. In this matter it is not the question of shortfall but actual payment made after two days from the date of first hearing but applying the above principle particularly when reason for actual payment is not attributable to tenant but to the procedural delay taken before the Court below, the tenant cannot be made to suffer. Therefore actual payment made by him on 24th August, 1995 would relate back to the date on which he rendered Tender seeking permission of the Court for making payment i.e. 22.8.1995."
5. This has been followed in Writ Petition No.24393 of 2003 (Murari Lal Vs. Sri Girwar & Ors.) decided on 12.9.2012.
6. The dictum laid down therein can always apply where tenant has also come out with a specific case and pleading that mistake in short deposit of amount was not deliberate and intentional but there was some calculation mistake or there was some human error or something like that. In other words, dictum laid down in Mam Chand Pal (supra), as discussed above, is attracted where petty shortfall is not attributable to a deliberate mischief on the part of tenant but for something over which he has no control or otherwise bona fide.
7. In the present case, it was not the case of petitioners at any point of time that deficit was on account of any clerical or calculation mistake. On the contrary, they have always asserted that this is a correct amount which ought to have been deposited and this is what has been done. Having failed in his attempt in both the Courts below, where benefit under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 has been denied and decree of eviction has been passed, they have now come to this Court but here also, in this writ petition, there is no averment that short deposit was on account of any clerical or calculation mistake. This show that due to deliberate intentional reasons short deposit was made by asserting that petitioner was not liable to deposit more than Rs.8,200/-. Reliance thus placed on Apex Court's decision in Mam Chand Pal (supra) has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition.
9. Dismissed.
10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 5.12.2012 KA