CHUNNI LAL Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition of a tenant arises out of a suit filed by the landlord respondent No 1 seeking his ejectment from the shop in dispute on the ground of default as contemplated under section 20 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The trial court had dismissed the suit holding that although the tenant petitioner was a defaulter within the meaning of section 20 (2) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. yet he was entitled to the benefits available under section 20 (4) of the said Act in as much as by the first date of hearing he will be deemed to have deposited the entire amount as required to be deposited under the aforesaid provision The trial court while calculating the amount required to be deposited as contemplated under section 70 (4) of the Act took into account the amounts deposited by the tenant petitioner in the proceedings under section 30 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 initiated by him, which had given rise to Misc Case No. 131 of 1975. The decree of the trial court was challenged by the landlord by means of the revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which was decided by the respondent No 2 vide its judgment and order dated 17-12-1981 where under the revisional Court reversed the decree passed by the trial court on the ground that the petitioner tenant was not entitled to take any advantage of the deposits made by him in the proceedings under section 30 of the U. P. Act No. 113 of 1972. These deposits could not be deemed to be valid and consequently either save the tenant from becoming a defaulter within the meaning of section 20 (2) of the said Act or could make up the deficiency in the amounts required to be deposited for becoming entitled to the benefits available under section 20 (4) of the said Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, the revisional court after setting aside the decree of the trial court decreed the suit of (landlord respondent no. I as claimed with costs throughout Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, the petitioner tenant has approached this Court by means of this writ petition seeking the quashing of the judgment and decree dated 17-12-1981, passed by the respondent No 2.

(2.) THE facts of the case as they emerge from the materials on the record indicate that the petitioner tenant had been depositing the rent in respect of the accommodation in dispute in the proceedings under section 30 of the Act, which had been initiated by him, and bad given rise to Misc. Case No. 131 of 1975 On 2nd off March, 1978, the plaintiff landlord had issued a notice to the tenant petitioner communicating to him his willingness to accept the rent in respect of the accomodation in dispute and forbidding the tenant petitioner from depositing the same in the proceedings under section 30 of the U P. Act No. 13 at 1972 THE aforesaid notice was duly received by the petitioner tenant however, he, instead of paying the amount of rent due to the plaintiff landlord, continued to deposit the same in the proceedings under section 30 of the U. F. Act No 13 of 1972 It further appears that an amount of Rs. 1600/- was deposited by the tenant petitioner in Misc Case No. 131 of 1975 on 11-4-1978 and the said amount of Rs. 1600/- was withdrawn by the plaintiff landlord on 15-7-1978 It further appears that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 issued a notice dated 6-1-1979 terminating the tenancy of the petitioner and requiring htm to pay the arrears of rent for the period commencing with the month of April, 1978 and ending with the month of December, 1978. In the aforesaid notice, it was specifically pointed out that It was not proper for the tenant to make any deposit in the proceedings under section 30 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. subsequent to the service of the notice dated 2-3-1978. THE notice was a notice contemplated under section 20 (2) of the said Act. This notice was a composite notice, terminating the tenancy and demanding the an ears of rent and compiled with the requirement envisaged under section 20 of the U. P. Ac: No. 13 of 1972 It further appears that on 3rd of August, 1978. the petitioner tenant had submitted a tender for permission to deposit an amount of Rs. 1200/- in Misc. Case No. J31 of 1975. This tender was presented in accordance with the rule 283 of the General Rules (Civil) and the report contemplated under Rule 284 of the aforesaid rules was submitted on 15th September, 1978. On the same date the court passed an order on the aforesaid tender for receiving the payment as contemplated under rule 285 of the General Rules (Civil). However, inspite of the order to receive payment having been passed by the Court on 15-9-1978, the requisite amount sought to be paid under the tender was actually deposited before the receiving officer on 16th January, 1979 i.e. to say after a lapse of about four months.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the landlord respondent has asserted that the deposits claimed to have been made by the tenant petitioner in the proceedings under section 30 of the Act subsequent to the notice dated 2nd of March, 1978 could not be deemed to be 'valid deposits' and consequently the tenant petitioners were not emitted to the benefits available under section 30 (6) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972! and further were not entitled to any adjustment of the amount claim to have been deposited by them in the aforesaid proceedings towards the amount required to be deposited under section 20 (4) of the Act in order to get relieved of the decree of ejectment. It has further been asserted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in any view of the matter, there could be no justification for the delay in making the deposit even after the passing of the order for receiving the payment on 15-9-1978 and the inordinate delay of about four months in making the deposit in pursuance of the order dated 15-9-1978 was more than sufficient by itself to indicate that the tender, which was submitted on 23rd August, 1978 was not a bona fide one and the petitioner could not be deemed to have with him the requisite amount for payment in court either on 23rd of August. 1978 or on 15-9-1978 or thereafter till 15th January. 1979. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the respondents asserted that the tenant petitioners were not entitled to any benefits of the said deposit and it could not be a case, where the amount actually deposited 16-1-1979 should be treated to have been deposited on 23-8-1978 as claimed by the tenant petitioners.