SHANTI DEVI Vs. D.J., JHANSI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition by the landlord is directed against a revisional order dated 13.7.2000 by which the tenant's revision against a decree of eviction and arrears of rent has been set aside and the suit of the landlord has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner landlord instituted a Small Causes Suit No. 58 of 1992 inter alia with the allegation that the contesting respondent was a sitting tenant of the disputed shop @ Rs. 37.50p. per month when he purchased the same from the erstwhile owner through a registered sale-deed dated 16th February, 1983 and despite notice in May 1983, the rent from said date was not being paid to the landlord and he has also made certain material alterations but despite notice dated 13.2.1992 demanding arrears of rent, the payments were not made within the 30 days period nor the premises vacated. The respondent tenant accepting tenancy and rate of rent, contested the suit inter alia with the allegation that he has paid rent until April, 1983 to the previous landlord and after receiving notice in May, 1983, he tendered the rent for May, 1983 to the petitioner who refused whereafter the same was being deposited in proceedings under section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and there was no five months default necessitating filing of the suit and the notice was illegal.

(3.) The Trial Court framed five issues including on the question of default, legality of deposit under section 30 of the Act and benefit of section 20(4) of the Act. After considering the evidence on record, it returned a finding that except for the deposit of May and June, 1983, all deposits under section 30 of the Act were illegal. It further went on to hold that on the date of notice, more than five months rent was due and it also held that deposit under section 20 of the Act was not sufficient to grant protection to the tenant and therefore, decreed the suit.