TARIF HASAN Vs. RAFIQ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected revisions have been filed against the same decree for ejectment ruled against the tenant. Sri Tarif Hasan, the applicant in revision, took the disputed accommodation on rent from the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and executed a rent note in his favour which is Ext. 11. Under the rent note it is clearly mentioned that he was the Manager of an institution styled as Children School, Naroli and that the building was taken for the purposes of the institution. Subsequently there seems to be some difference between the plaintiff and the defendant whereupon the defendant sent the rent to the plaintiff' by money order. He, however, deducted an amount of Rs. 12/50 on account of money order commission from the rent so sent. The plaintiff-landlord refused to accept the rent as it was not for the entire amount. Subsequently the defendant deposited rent under Sec. 30 (l) of U P. Urban building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The plain issued a notice of demand as well as termination of tenancy alleging the defendant has sublet portions of the accommodation, made material alterations in the buildings and defaulted in payment of rent. Consequently he was liable to ejectment The suit was filed against the tenant impleading Miss Reeta Rathore and Mrs. Chisti, two teachers as sub tenants.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that there were no material alteration and no subletting. It was further contended that the building was taken for the purposes of the Children School which should have been made a party. It was further contended that was no default as all the rent due has been deposited under 30(2) of the aforesaid Act. The trial court gave a finding that there was no subletting and no material alteration. It further held that the defendant was bound by the rent note executed by it and under the rent note he was the tenant. The request of the defendant to implead the institution as a party was also turned down. It was held that as the defendant had remitted the rent of the plaintiff after deducting the commission, the plaintiff had a right to refuse the rent as it was not for the full amount. Consequently it was held that the deposits under S: 30(1) of U. P Act No. XIII of 1972 were not valid and could not save the defaulter. It was also held that the defendant was a defaulter and liable to be evicted. Civil Revision No. 234 of 1980 has been filed by Sri Tarif Hasan whereas Civil Revn. No. 92 of 1980 has been filed by Miss Reeta Rathore.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The learned counsel for the tenant-applicant contended that the defendant was not a defaulter and as the rent was refused by the landlord, he had a right to deposit the same under Sec. 30(T) of the Act. He further contended that the children school was a registered society and, therefore, it should have been sued in its own name and as the society itself was not impleaded, he suit could not be decreed against the defendant personally.