SARDAR BALDEV SINGH UPPAL Vs. VISHAL CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.K. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of the house in dispute, who is challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur, dated 10th July, 2013 by which he has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur, dated 21st Aug., 2006, passed in SCC Suit No. 11 of 2006.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the tenant of the house in dispute at the rent of Rs. 30.00 per month. It is the case of the petitioner that when the respondent-land-lord refused to accept the rent, he deposited the rent, under Sec. 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972 for the period subsequent to 1.1.1995, amounting to Rs. 4320.00. The respondent-landlord issued a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for arrears of rent and for eviction of the premises and thereafter filed a SCC Suit, being Suit No. 11 of 2006, with the allegations that the petitioner has not paid the rent for the period subsequent to 1.1.1995. The petitioner filed the written statement, stating therein that on the refusal by the landlord, rent has been deposited under Sec. 30 and further a sum of Rs. 6005/- has been deposited as rent under Sec. 20(4) of the Act. The Judge, Small Causes Court decreed the suit on the ground that the petitioner could not deposit water tax at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per month and has also not deposited full interest. The petitioner was found in default and accordingly the suit has been decreed. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision, which has also been dismissed. The revisional court has calculated the interest at Rs. 2237/- and has observed that if it is taken that against the interest Rs. 4,00.00 has been deposited, even then the amount deposited towards interest was short and accordingly findings recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court that the petitioner is in default in paying the rent has been upheld. So far as the deposit under Sec. 30 of the Act is concerned, the revisional court has accepted the same, but has not given the adjustment and recorded the finding that the rent at the rate of Rs. 30.00 has been paid.