ABDUL WAHID Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is tenant's writ petition directed against order passed by Additional District Judge in revision striking off his defence. JSCC/munsif Nagina in Suit (SCC Suit No. 57 of 1981) had refused to strike off the defence of petitioner tenant by order dated 18-9-1982. Landlord respondent filed revision against the said order being Civil Revision No. 291 of 1982 which was connected with Civil Revision No. 292 of 1982. Civil Revision No. 292 of 1982 was dismissed while Civil Revision No. 291 of 1982 was allowed.

(2.) LALA Radhey Lal original landlord respondent No. 3 (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) filed two suits against Abdul Aziz and Abdul Wahid father and son. Abdul Aziz died during the pendency of revision leaving behind the other tenant Abdul Wahid his son as his only legal representative. Abdul Wahid filed the instant writ petition and he also died during pendency of the writ petition and was survived by legal representatives. Radhey Lal had filed two suits against Abdul Aziz and Abdul Wahid, the tenants regarding the same tenanted accommodation. In suit No. 57 of 1981, eviction was sought from the shop in dispute alongwith recovery of arrears of rent while in suit No. 58 of 1981 decree for arrears of rent of different period was sought. Both the suit were consolidated. Application for striking off the defence had been filed in suit No. 58 of 1981 before consolidation of both the suits. The said suit relates to only recovery of arrears of rent hence provision of striking off the defence is not applicable to the said suit. The Revisional Court after noting the aforesaid facts held that after order of consolidation of both the suits, application for striking off the defence could be treated to have been filed in suit No. 57 of 1981, which contained the prayer for eviction also. The Revisional Court in the alternative held that defence could be struck off even without any application.

(3.) THE Revisional Court is right in holding that after receiving notice of demand tenant is not entitled to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act.