OM PRAKASH SINGHAL Vs. SANT RAM BHATIA (DECEASED) REPRESS RATED BY HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Sri Sant Ram Bhatia was landlord of an accommodation of which the petitioner is the tenant. Sri Sant Ram Bhatia filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes at Kanpur. During the pendency of the litigation Sri Sant Ram Bhatia died and is now represented by his legal representatives, respondents 1 to 8. The case of Sri Sant Ram Bhatia was that the accommodation in question was constructed in the year 1964 and consequently neither U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act No. III of 1947) nor U. P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) applied to the said accommodation. The -defence of the petitioner, however, was that the said accommodation had been constructed in the year 1962 and consequently U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 became applicable to it in the year 1972. His further case was that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 240.00 on 6th July, 1973 under Sec. 30 of U P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and another sum of Rs. 1,140.00 on 13th Feb., 1475 under the same section. According to him, if these deposits were taken into account, he was not in arrears of any rent when the suit was instituted. The petitioner further deposited a sum of Rs 1432.00 on 17th Sept., 1975 purporting to be in compliance of Sec. 39 of U P. Act No XIII of 1972 and after making the said deposit he claimed immunity from a decree for eviction being passed against him At this place it may be pointed out that Sri Sant Ram Bhatia had already given credit to the sum of Rs. 240.00 deposited by the petitioner under Sec. 30 on 6th of July, 1973 and there was no dispute in regard to that amount. The deposit which was made on 17th Sept., 1975 by the petitioner under Sec. 39 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 had been made after adjusting the sum of Rs. 1,140.00 deposited by him on 13th Feb., 1975 under Sec. 30 aforesaid. On the question as to when the accommodation in dispute was constructed, the Judge, Small Cause Court accepted the plea raised by the landlord and held that the said accommodation had been constructed on 1st Oct., 1964 within the meaning of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. On this finding, he held that U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not applicable to the accommodation in question prior to 1st Oct., 1974. He further seems to have taken the view that since the suit was filed in the year 1974, the petitioner was not entitled to adjust the sung of Rs. 1,140.00 deposited on 13th Feb., 1975. Even though it has not been so stated in his order, it appears that the Judge, Small Cause Court was of the view that benefit of Sec. 39 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 could he given to the petitioner only if he had deposited the sum of Rs. 1,140.00 also on 17th Sept., 1975 along with the sum of Rs. 1,432.00 deposited by him. On this finding the suit both for recovery of arrears of rent as well as mesne profits and for ejectment of the petitioner from the accommodation in question was decreed. A revision was filed by the petitioner before the District Judge which was dismissed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur on 2nd Nov., 1976. It is these two orders which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) Before dealing with the respective submissions made by the counsel for the parties, it may be pointed out that the petitioner had earlier preferred a civil revision in this Court against the order of the herd Additional District Judge dated 2nd Nov., 1976, which, I am informed by the counsel for the petitioner, has after the institution of the writ petition been dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable.

(3.) It was urged by the counsel for the petitioner that since on the own finding recorded by the Judge Small Cause Court U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 had become applicable to the accommodation in question on 1st Oct., 1974, the deposit made by the petitioner of the sum of Rs. 1,140.00 towards rent on 13th Feb., 1975 was a valid deposit and in view of sub- Sec. (6) of the said Sec. that amount will be deemed to have been paid to the landlord. It was further urged that on the finding recorded by the Additional District Judge if the sum of Rs. 1,140.00 deposited by the petitioner under Sec. 30 of U. P. Act No XIII of 1972 on 13th Feb., 1975 was given due credit, the deposit made on 17th Sept., 1975 under Sec. 39 of the said Act fulfilled the requirements of the said Sec. and no decree for eviction of the petitioner could be pissed in view of the statutory requirement of Sec. 39. For the landlord respondents 1 to 8, it was urged that the benefit of the deposit under Sec. 30 could not be availed of by the petitioner inasmuch as there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner had tendered the sum of Rs. 1,140.00 to the then landlord and it had been refused by him. Counsel for the landlords, with reference to sub-section (1) of Sec. 30, submitted that a deposit under Sec. 30 could be made only if the requirement of the said sub-section was complied with.