ARUN KUMAR Vs. THAKURJI MAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, petitioner prays for is suance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13-8-1993 whereby the suit filed by the contesting respondent for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was decreed and the order dated 16-9-1999 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dis missed by the Revisional Court.

(2.) IT appears that the contesting respondent filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent on the ground of default. IT was pleaded that in spite of service of notice of demand and termina tion of tenancy upon him, nothing was paid to the plaintiff-respondent nor building was vacated. On the other hand, reply of the notice was given with wrong facts. Petitioner was, therefore, liable to be ejected from the building in question. The petitioner contested the suit pleading that before receipt of the notice, the amount of rent was tendered to the landlord, which was refused by him, therefore, the same was deposited under Section 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1971), for short the Act. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The trial Court after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, recorded findings on the relevant issues in favour of the contesting respondent and decreed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 13-8-1993. Validity of the said decree was challenged before the Court below. The Court below also af firmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 16-9-1999. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) IN this case, it is not disputed that the notice of demand was served upon the petitioner when rent for more than four months was due against him, and the petitioner did not pay the amount, as demanded by the plaintiff respondent, within 30 days. Therefore, he was a defaul ter as he has committed default in payment of rent. The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act was of no avail inasmuch as the application filed by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act, admittedly, was dismissed. The said amount, therefore, could not be withdrawn by the plaintiff respondent. On receipt of the notice, it was obligatory upon the petitioner to tender the amount of rent event if the same was earlier tendered. The amount which is said to have been tendered and deposited under Section 30 of the Act, was actually tendered or not is not proved from the material on the record nor the Courts below have recorded any findings on this aspect of the matter. On the aspect of the matter, no issue was framed by the trial Court, therefore, no occasion to record the above finding could arise, therefore, the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, to the contrary, at this stage cannot be accepted. The findings recorded by the Courts below are concurrent find ings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on the record. No case for inter ference under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of INdia is made out.