MAQSOOD BEG Vs. SMT. SHAKEELA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Islam, advocate, for the petitioner. Suit of respondent-landlord, i.e., S.C.C. Suit No. 62 of 1998, filed for ejectment of petitioner-tenant from accommodation in question, which is a residential building, on the ground of default in payment of rent, has been decreed by trial court vide judgment and order dated 15.12.2009 and the said judgment has also been confirmed by revisional court vide judgment dated 10.10.12 by dismissing S.C.C. Revision No. 4 of 2010, where against this writ petition has come up.

(2.) It is evident from record that petitioner-tenant deposited entire rent and other dues before the first date of hearing as contemplated under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. (in short, Act, 1972), but the courts below have declined to grant benefit by virtue of proviso to Section 20(4), which reads as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner contended that there are two manifest errors of law committed by courts below: (1) there was no pleading about the residential building in the same city, etc. so as to attract proviso to Section 20(4) of Act, 1972; and, (2) the alleged residential accommodation belong to petitioner's father and bequeathed to petitioner's brother by a registered will, which defence has wrongly been discarded by the courts below. In support of submission about specific pleadings he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Girish Chandra Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 ACJ 1953.