SHABD SARAN Vs. HAJI MOHD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil revisions have been filed by the same applicant. He is a tenant of an accommodation situate in 22, Queens Road, Allahabad. He has been in arrears of rent for over three months. The opposite-party took proceedings against him under Section 7-B of the Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, (Act No. III of 1947). This section permits a landlord to serve a notice of ejectment through the Munsif's Court on a tenant who has not paid rent for more than three months. The Munsif, while serving the notice, calls upon the tenant to pay up the arrears within fifteen days or to show cause within the said period why an order directing him to be evicted from the accommodation be not passed against him. Sub-section (7) of this section provides that it is open to the tenant to file an objection (other than an objection in respect of costs) and in the event of such an objection being filed the landlord can, on payment of court-fee, convert the proceedings into a suit. The objections filed by the tenants are then to be decided in that suit. But a proviso added to this Sub-section lays down that a tenant "shall not be permitted to file any objection unless he has deposited in court the amount mentioned in the notice".

(2.) The applicant, when served with notice by the learned Munsif, filed an objection but made no deposit. The learned Munsif, however, granted him an extension of time to make such deposit. Before the expiry of this extended period the applicant came up in revision to this Court. He has contended before me that the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 7-B at the instance of the opposite-party.

(3.) To appreciate this contention it is necessary to narrate a few facts which are undisputed between the parties. When the accommodation in question was let out to the applicant by the order of the Rent Control Officer, one Ghazanfar Ullah was described as the owner of the accommodation. Later on a partition took place between him and his brother Zulfiqar Ullah (opposite-party) and by means of a registered deed of partition the accommodation in question was allotted to Zulfiqar Ullah. After the partition Ghazanfar Ullah informed the applicant that the house had thence forward become the property of his brother Zulfiqar Ullah. The applicant tendered rent to him (Ghazanfar Ullah) but the latter refused to accept it informing him that the rent was payable to Zulfiqar Ullah. Zulfiqar Ullah and his counsel have shown the registered deed of partition to the applicant to satisfy him that the accommodation in question has been allotted to Zulfiqar Ullah. Yet the applicant contends that Zulfiqar Ullah could not maintain a petition against him under Section 7B of the Act.