SHRI RAM Vs. SAHADEO PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff landlord's appeal from a decree of dis missal of a suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant from a shop.

(2.) Alleging that the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent despite a notice of demand having been served upon him asking him to pay up within one month of the receipt thereof the plaintiff landlord filed the suit for his eviction after having terminated the tenancy by a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Properly Act. I am not concerned in this appal with some other pleas raised by the plaintiff landlord as nothing will turn on them in this appeal. The defence set up was that the plaintiff-landlord refused to adept the rent when the tender was made to him personally and also refused to adept the money orders when the rent was remitted to him, the defendant tenant, therefore, had to take recourse to Sec. 7-C of the U P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter called the Act) and deposited the rent due on the date of the application under Sec. 7-C aid continued to deposit periodically the rent up-to-date. Thus there was no rent in arrear on the date when the notice demanding the payment of arrears was sent by the plaintiff landlord.

(3.) The learned Munsif held that the deposit made by the defendant- tenant under Sec. 7-C of the Act was not a valid deposit as no notice for the subsequent deposits was served upon the plaintiff-landlord. On that finding the learned Munsif held trait the defendant- tenant was in arrears of rent and he having not complied with the notice of demand of payment of arrears served upon him, was liable to be evicted.