MUNNI DEVI Vs. IIND A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-tenant have challenged the orders passed by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional authority, whereby the suit filed by the landlord-contesting respondent was decreed and on revision, the revisional court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners-tenant.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case are that the landlord-respondent No. 3 filed JSCC Suit No. 69 of 1994 for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages from the petitioners-tenant before the prescribed authority on the ground that the tenant is defaulter in payment of rent and further that the tenant has sub-let the premises in question without permission in writing after terminating the tenancy of the petitioners-tenant by serving a notice. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the trial court on 30th March, 1996. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant-petitioners preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional court has allowed the revision and remanded back the matter to the trial court vide its order dated 19th September, 1998, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, with a direction to decide the suit afresh in the light of the observations made by the revisional court. After remand, the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 9th February, 2000, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, decreed the suit. Thereafter, the petitioners-tenant preferred a revision before the revisional court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and the revisional court vide its order dated 17th February. 2001, dismissed the revision, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, thus this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-tenant submitted that from the material on record, it is apparent that after serving the notice terminating the tenancy, the landlord accepted the rent, which was sent by the wife of the petitioners-tenant towards the rent for the period 1st August, 1989 till 31st August, 1994 by Money Order and it is specifically mentioned in the Money Order Coupon in vernacular that I am sending you the rent for shop No. 131, Laxmanganj, Gandhi Road, Khurja, District Bulandshahr for the period from 1st August, 1989 till 31st August, 1994 (shop in dispute), please accept the same and send the receipt for the same. The aforesaid Money Order is addressed to the landlord with the address of the landlord and the same was accepted by the landlord. On the strength of the acceptance of the aforesaid Money Order, it was argued on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-tenant that by accepting the rent for the subsequent period during the pendency of the suit by the landlord, the notice terminating the tenancy stood waived and since Sub-Section (1) to Section 20 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provides that a suit contemplated under the aforesaid section can be filed only after terminating the tenancy, the same was liable to be dismissed. The relevant portion of Sub-section (1) to Section 20 of the Act is reproduced below :