CHOKHA MAL ALIAS CHAULA RAM Vs. RAM AUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition. The landlord Respondent No. 3, Ram Autar filed a suit in the court of Judge Small Causes, Bulandshahr for the eviction of the Petitioner Chokha Mal alias Chaula Ram from the shop in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent. The Petitioner taking advantage of the provisions of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' made a deposit of Rs. 2,714/ - on the 12th January, 1979, which was held to be the first date of hearing of the suit. The landlord claimed that the amount so deposited did not cover all the amounts due including the interest thereon. The Petitioner pleaded that there was no shortfall in the amount, for he had made certain other deposits Under Section 30(1) of the Act.

(2.) THE trial court partly decreed the suit of the landlord in respect of realisation of rent from 1 -6 -975 but refused the relief of ejectment of the Petitioner from the shop in question. The landlord Ram Autar filed a revision before the District Judge Under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and claimed that the amount deposited by the Petitioner was not the full amount and there was a short fall and consequently the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act was not available to the Petitioner and secondly the deposit made by the Petitioner Under Section 30(1) of the Act was not a valid deposit, as no notice was issued to the landlord. On both these points the District Judge agreed with the landlord and allowed the revision decreeing the suit of the landlord. It is against this decision that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondents Shri Dhan Prakash, however, contended that there was no compliance with Section 30 or Rule 21, inasmuch as no notice was ever issued to the landlord regarding these deposits and consequently the benefit of the deposit could not be given to the Petitioner. Secondly, there was no refusal on the part of the landlord so as to give a right to the tenant to make the deposit. His third contention was that the deposit was not unconditional and, as such the order of the District Judge was not liable to be set aside or quashed.