SHIV KUMARI GUPTA Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the landlord is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th January, 1990 and 25th July, 1991, whereby the suit of the petitioner-landlord for arrears of rent and ejectment was partly decreed only in so far as the arrears of rent were concerned and has been dismissed for the ejectment of the tenant-respondent No. 3.

(2.) The dispute relates to House No. 46/101, Hatya, Kanpur Nagar of which the petitioner is the owner and landlord and respondent No. 3, Baboo Lal, was the tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 15. As there was default in payment of rent with effect from 1st May, 1984, the landlord petitioner, after receiving the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The tenant contested the suit on various pleas; that he had made the deposit as required under Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and therefore, was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of said section and the suit was liable to be dismissed. The trial Court vide judgment dated 15th January, 1990 held that the suit of the petitioner, for recovery of arrears of rent was liable to be decreed. But in so far as the ejectment was concerned, it granted benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, that the deposit was sufficient and accordingly, dismissed the suit for ejectment. The landlord-petitioner filed revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and raised specific ground that the tenant had not deposited the water-tax, the interest and cost of the suit as provided under Section 20 (4) of the Act and he was not entitled to the benefit of the said section. The Revisional Court, agreed with the contention of the landlord-petitioner that the amount required under law has not been deposited by the tenant, but it observed that the same could be recovered by the landlord in the execution proceedings. On this ground it dismissed the revision vide judgment dated 25th July, 1991. Aggrieved by the said judgment the writ petition has been filed by the landlord.

(3.) I have heard Sri R.K. Misra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Agarwal and Sri V.N. Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent tenant has made a statement that he has no instructions in this case.