BALAGAT HUSAIN Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from the premises in question on the ground that the defendant committed a default in the payment of rent. The defendant contested the suit and submitted that he was not a defaulter and that he had remitted the rent by money order, which was refused and, thereafter, the defendant had deposited the rent under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) The trial court after determining the points in issue, decreed the suit and held that the defendant was defaulter and was in arrears of rent. The trial court found that the deposit made by the defendant under Section 30 of the Act was illegal and that the defendant ought to have offered the amount to the landlord after receiving the notice and in the event the landlord refused to accept the rent, only then the tenant could deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act. The trial court found that pursuant to the notice dated 1.6.1984 the defendant had not paid the rent to the landlord and therefore, the benefit of Section 30 of the Act could not be made available to the tenant.

(3.) Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the tenant filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional court found that the landlord had earlier sent notices to the tenant pursuant to which the tenant had tendered the rent to the landlord by money order, which was refused and thereafter, the tenant deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act. The revisional court further found that the landlord had withdrawn the rent deposited by the tenant under Section 30 of the Act. The revisional court found that the rent up to July, 1984, had been deposited by the tenant under Section 30 and in view of the fact that the amount deposited under Section 30 of the Act was also withdrawn by the landlord, the revisional court held that the rent had been duly paid by the tenant to the landlord. In view of this reasoning, the revisional court held that the tenant was not, in arrears of rent and, therefore, he could not be evicted under Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act.