SMT. LALTI DEVI Vs. IVTH A.D.J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, Advocate, appearing for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondents, despite service of notice though names of Sri M.P. Singh and Mahendra Pratap Singh are shown in the cause list as counsel for respondents. Writ petition is directed against the revisional order dated 17.7.1996 passed by 4th Addl. District Judge, Azamgarh allowing tenant-respondents' revision and dismissing the suit filed by petitioner-landlord for eviction after setting aside Trial Courts judgment dated 20.1.1994. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that tenant had not deposited the entire rent and, therefore, was defaulter. The revisional Court has committed patent error in observing that tenant has deposited the entire amount.

(2.) The judgement of Revisional Court shows that in para 17, 18 and 19, it has discussed in detail various deposits of rent made by tenants and also the amount deposited in Misc. Case No. 46 of 1988 under Section 30 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). The Court has also found that deposits if made under Section 30(2) of Act, 1972 shall also qualify for benefit under Section 20(4) and if entire such amount is taken into consideration, the payment due since 1968 including the rent barred by time stood deposited. Hence the tenants were not in default and decree of eviction could not have been passed.

(3.) I find the view taken by the Revisional Court regarding Section 30(2) vis-a-vis Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 fortified by Apex Court's decision in Kailash Chandra and another v. Mukundi Lal and others, 2002 2 SCC 678 wherein Apex Court found the amount deposited under Section 30(2), deductible under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 observing as under: