BHIKHA LAL Vs. MUNNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a difference of opinion between R. L. Gulati and H. N. Seth, JJ. the following question has been referred to me for opinion by the Acting Chief Justice:-

(2.) THE material facts to bring about the question referred to me are as follows:

(3.) IT appears that the tenant again fell in arrears. The landlordsi therefore, sent a fresh notice dated 17th July, 1963. through a Vakil demanding the past arrears of Rs. 89.75 (represent ing the decretal amount) and subsequent arrears for seven months from 25th November, 1962 to June. 1963 to the tune of Rs. 35/- (total arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 124.75 P.). The notice was duly served on the tenant. The tenant sent a reply dated 6th August, 1963. through a Vakil, informing the landlords that the amount of Rs. 80.75 P. had already been deposited towards the decretal amount in Court and he had sent the other amount of Rs. 35/- by Money Order, It was definitely stated in the reply that if there was any diffi culty in getting the amount from the Court, he was prepared to give his con sent for withdrawal. The landlords did not respond to this letter and filed a suit for the eviction of the tenant treating him to be a defaulter within the mean ing of Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Evic tion Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The suit was contested by the tenant on the ground, inter alia, that he had already deposited the sum of Rupees 89.75 P. and sent the other amount of Rs. 35/- by Money Order well within thirty days of the. receipt of the notice, but the landlords refused to accept the same and. therefore, he was not a de faulter within the meaning of Section 3 '(1) (a) of the Act.