OM PRAKASH BHARDWAJ Vs. MAQSOOD ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This petition by the landlord is directed against a revisional order dated 11.11.1999 allowing the revision of the respondent tenant against a decree of eviction and arrears of rent dated 6.1.1999 and dismissing the suit.

(3.) The petitioner landlord had earlier filed a Suit No. 7 of 1994 for arrears of rent and eviction claiming default from 1.9.1989 against the respondent tenant from the disputed shop where he was a sitting tenant. However, the suit was decided in terms of a compromise dated 25.1.1995 where the respondent tenant undertook to deposit the entire remaining amount of rent of Rs. 3700/by 30.6.1995 and the rent was also enhanced to Rs. 200/per month w.e.f. 1.4.1995. However, neither the rent in accordance to the compromise was paid nor the respondent tenant deposited the entire amount forcing the petitioner to file an execution case. Since rent was not being paid w.e.f. 1.4.1995 at the rate of Rs. 200/per month, the petitioner determined the tenancy vide notice dated 20.8.1996 and demanded rent from 1.4.1995 together with water tax. The respondent tenant neither tendered the rent nor vacated the premises forcing the petitioner to file a fresh Suit No. 16 of 1996 before the Judge Small Cause demanding rent w.e.f. 1.4.1995 apart from water tax and cost etc. After contest, the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 6.1.1999 on the ground of default and benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was also denied. Aggrieved, the respondent tenant preferred a revision which has been allowed by the impugned order holding that there was substantial compliance of Section 20(4) of the Act and relieved the tenant from eviction.