VINAY KRISHNA RASTOGI Vs. RAM BABU RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant -tenant has filed this petition for setting aside the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2009 by which SCC Suit No.3 of 2000 filed by the landlord/respondent for eviction and arrears of rent has been decreed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 22nd October, 2011 by which SCC Revision No.2 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid judgment has been dismissed.

(2.) IT is pointed out by Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that arrears of rent claimed by the landlord through the notice from October, 1999 to May, 2000 had been tendered to the landlord by three money orders for Rs.13,000/ -but the landlord refused to accept the amount tendered. He, therefore, submits that as the tenant had tendered the rent within a month from the date of receipt of the notice, there was no default in payment of rent and so decree for eviction under Section 20(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is illegal and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) PRIMA facie, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have force. Even if the version of the landlord is accepted that the rent was Rs.1000/ -per month, then too the amount tendered by the tenant was Rs.13,000/ -which was more than the rent due for seven months. The decree for eviction under Section 20(2) of the Act could not have been passed.