KALLAN Vs. HEMANT SAHAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Kshitij Shailendra, learned Counsel for plaintiff opposite party. The present revision has been filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Act against the judgment and decree dated 9th August, 2010 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 2008, whereby the Court below has decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages, house tax and ejectment of the defendant tenant applicant herein. The suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that there is relation of landlord and tenant between the parties and the tenancy has been determined by the notice dated 27th July, 2007 which was served on the defendant tenant on 28th July, 2007. The defendant tenant is in arrears of rent since July, 2003. The said suit was contested by denying the arrears of rent.

(2.) The Trial Court has decreed the suit after recording a finding that the defendant tenant is in arrears of rent since July, 2003. It has also been found that the defendant tenant has not deposited the requisite amount on the first date of hearing to avail the benefit of section 20 sub-clause 4 of the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The written statement was filed on 6th January, 2009 and the money was not deposited along with the written statement but it was deposited after more than one year on 26th May, 2010. Further finding is that the said amount is short. The Court below has found that neither money was deposited on the first date of hearing nor the defendant tenant has not made the requisite deposit as required under section 20 sub-clause 4 of the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that it was due to default of the Counsel to calculate the correct amount due. He further submits that a notice was given on 27th July, 2007. Thereafter, a correction notice was given on 9th October, 2007 and therefore, the defendant tenant has been misled in making the payment. Both the above submissions are devoid of any substance. The defendant tenant cannot escape to perform his part to comply with the letters of law on the ground that it was fault of the Counsel. Even otherwise also except making a general statement, there is no material on record to show that the defendant tenant was not correctly advised by his Counsel. The defendant tenant cannot be permitted to take shelter of the Counsel's advise for his fault.