RIHANDA MAL SINDHI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant, aggrieved by an order passed by the revisional court whereby the revision filed by the landlord under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed, approach this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant with the allegations that the tenant is defaulter within the meaning of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the 'Act') and thus he is liable to be ejected by decree of the Court. Before the trial court the petitioner-tenant has taken up the case that landlord Is in habit of harassing the petitioner-tenant as would be clear from the fact that respondent-landlord filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 251 of 1976 for ejectment and recovery of rent which was dismissed on 9th July 1977. A revision against the aforesaid decree was also dismissed. Thereafter another suit was filed being Suit No. 5 of 1982 for ejectment which too was dismissed in the year 1983 and the revision filed against that order was dismissed on 16th March, 1985. It is further stated by the petitioner-tenant that since respondent No. 2 was not accepting rent from the petitioner, the petitioner started depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act in Misc. Case No. 195 of 1981 and when the notice for the present suit, namely, Suit No. 42 of 1987 determining the tenancy and demand for arrears of rent was received by the tenant-petitioner he approached several times to the landlord that rent may be accepted but since the rent has not been accepted the same was sent through money order and this money order was also refused by the landlord, therefore, the tenant has deposited the rent in Misc. Case No. 195 of 1981. When the petitioner-tenant received notice terminating tenancy on 11th March, 1986, the entire amount of rent was already deposited in Misc. Case No. 195 of 1981 and nothing was due. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the view taken by the trial court was fully justified and revisional court erred in law in reversing the decree passed by the trial court, as would be clear from perusal of Sections 20 (4) and 30 of the Act which are reproduced below : "20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds.

(3.) The revisional court while disagreeing with the view taken by the trial court has held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the deposit made by the petitioner-tenant under Section 30 in Misc. Case No. 195 of 1981 cannot be said to be a valid deposit which can give him benefit of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. There is no dispute that the deposit made in Misc. Case No. 195 of 1981 is not a valid deposit. The tenant cannot escape the eviction and the benefit of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 cannot be given to the tenant.