VIJAI KUMAR TYAGI Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated December 03, 1987, passed by the I Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, in S.C.C. Revision No. 294 of 1985, whereby said authority has allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.11.1985, passed by Civil Judge/Judge Small Causes Court, Roorkee, and decreed the S.C.C. Suit No. 08 of 1982, for ejectment of the tenant/petitioner. ( Earlier Roorkee was part of District Saharanpur).

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is living in House No. 151/7 (Old No. 70/7) in Mohalla Chau Mandi, Railway Road, Roorkee, since 1962, as a tenant. Smt. Vidyawati, mother of respondent No. 3 and wife of respondent No. 4 was the original landlady, who died in the year 1976, leaving her five sons and three daughters besides her husband. The rate of rent was Rs. 40/ - per month. In the year 1978, petitioner asked the respondent No. 3 to make repairs in the house, but when he did not pay any heed, petitioner himself got the repairs done, costing Rs. 858.29 paise. The petitioner (tenant) sought realization of the said amount and got recovered Rs. 480/ - through the court. Earlier, respondent No. 4 Bisheshwar Dayal, husband of Smt. Vidyawati, instituted suit No. 03 of 1979 for recovery of rent for the period March 1978 to December 1978, which was decreed by the trial court. But, on petitioners filing Revision No. 281/1982, the decree was set aside. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 08 of 1982 (from which these proceedings have arisen) in the court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Roorkee, against the petitioner (tenant) for his ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. Before said suit was instituted, a notice was got served on the petitioner, in January 1984. The petitioner contested the suit and filed his written statement. To avoid the ejectment, he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,280/ - towards arrears of rent due, interest and cost of the suit. The trial court recorded the evidence and after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit for ejectment vide its judgment and decree dated November 21, 1985, which is annexed with the petition. Aggrieved by said judgment and order passed by the trial court (Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge, Roorkee), S.C.C. Revision No. 294 of 1985 was filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.12.1987, said revision was allowed and suit of the plaintiffs (landlords) was decreed for ejectment of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the impugned order on the ground that the revisional court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree of ejectment, as the petitioner was protected under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) by making necessary deposits in the court. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the suit for recovery of water tax and electricity charges was not maintainable. The amount claimed by the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 in the suit was not the actual amount due, and as such, it was not necessary for the petitioner to deposit whatever claimed by the plaintiff. Subsequently, after the creation of State of Uttarakhand, this writ petition was received by way of transfer from the Allahabad High Court, under Section 35 of the U.P. Re -organization Act, 2000, for its disposal.