YOGESH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. NARESH KUMAR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

(2.) At the out-set the Court has made two queries from the learned Counsel for the petitioners, firstly as to how the user of the shop in question has been changed from commercial to residential without permission of the landlord as it has come on record that the tenancy of the shop in question has devolved upon the petitioners and now it is an admitted fact that they are residing therein and secondly what is the illegality in the impugned order of the Revisional Court in holding that the expenses towards publication of notice amounting to Rs. 2250/- were not deposited on the first date of hearing of the suit and as such they could not be given benefit of section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(3.) It appears that the Revisional Court has come to the conclusion that the Trial Court has committed an error in law in not taking the expenses of publication of notice to be included in rent for the purpose of determining that the tenants have deposited the entire arrears of rent. The Revisional Court has relied upon the cases of Gopal Yadav v. Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Varanasi, 2002 46 AllLR 454, and Ajai Pal Singh v. Additional District Judge, Nainital,2001 45 AllLR 724, wherein it has been held by the Court that expenses incurred in publication of notice are also part of the arrears of rent.