ASHOK KUMAR Vs. DIN DAYAL BADAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original landlord died on 11.11.1987. The tenant remitted the rent by money-order, which was returned with the remark that the original landlord had died. Accordingly, the tenant Hied an application under Section 30 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, stating therein that the original landlord had died and that it was not known as to whom the rent should be sent. Notice on this application was sent to the heirs of the landlord, who refused to accept the summons and, accordingly, the Munsif permitted the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act. Thereafter, the heirs of the original landlord sent a notice dated 9.8.1988 to the tenant demanding arrears of rent and further terminated the tenancy. This notice was duly served upon the defendant on 16.8.1988. The defendant submitted a reply dated 30.8.1988 intimating the heirs that he had deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act in the Court of Munsif and that the heirs may withdraw the rent from the Court. The tenant also intimated that he was not in arrears of rent. Inspite of this reply, the heirs filed a suit for arrears of rent and for eviction. The Judge Small Cause Court dismissed the suit holding that the tenant was not in arrears of rent and that he had made a valid deposit of rent under Section 30(2) of the Act. The court below while dismissing the suit, however, directed the landlord to withdraw the rent deposited by the defendant.

(2.) Aggrieved by the decision of the Judge Small Cause Court, the landlord has now filed the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

(3.) The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that there was no valid deposit of rent under Section 30 (1) of the Act and therefore, no benefit could be given to the tenant with regard to the said deposit. The learned counsel submitted that the money order sent by the tenant was returned with the remark that the landlord had died and therefore, it could not be said that there had been a refusal which would justify the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 30 (1) of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon Jagat Prasad v. District Judge, Kanpur and Ors., 1995 (2) ARC 360; Satish Chandra Nigam v. District Judge. Kanpur and Ors., 1984 (2) ARC 324 and Jawahar Lal Chaurasiya v. Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur and Ors., 1981 ARC 506.