ROSHAN ALI Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the landlord against the judgment and order dated 2.2.2002, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 24, Bijnor, whereby, the revision of the respondent tenant under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act) was allowed and the suit of the petitioner landlord was dismissed after setting aside the judgment dated 29.7.1998, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bijnor, decreeing the suit of the landlord petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment.

(2.) The dispute relates to a shop situated in Mohallah Bazar Chandpur, district Bijnor, which was in the tenancy of the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 300. The respondent tenant committed default in payment of rent, as alleged by the petitioner and, therefore, after terminating the tenancy and issuing notice of demand, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment of the respondent tenant, which was registered as S.C.C, Suit No. 52 of 1993. According to the landlord, the tenant had not paid rent after March, 1991 and was, therefore, in arrears from the month of April, 1991. The notice terminating the tenancy and raising demand dated 26th August, 1992, is alleged to have been served upon the tenant on 31.8.1992. The tenant denied the allegations and alleged in his written statement that he had paid rent upto July, 1992 and had sent the rent for the month's of August and September, 1992 by money order, but the landlord refused to accept the rent and, therefore, started depositing the same in the Court under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The suit was initially decreed ex parte on 1.8.1994. Thereafter, the tenant appeared and filed an application for recall of the ex parte decree, which was allowed. The tenant then filed his written statement on 24.1.1995 and, thereafter on 10.3.1997 the tenant deposited the rent in the said suit as provided under Section 20(4) of the 1972 Act and claimed protection from eviction. The trial court vide judgment dated 29.7.1998, decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent from April, 1991 and also for pendente lite and future damages till the date of vacating the premises and also for ejectment of the tenant respondent. The trial court, inter alia, recorded the findings that the provisions of 1972 Act, were applicable in the present case, the tenant respondent had committed default in payment of rent and he was not entitled to benefit of Section 20(4) of the 1972 Act, as deposit of rent had not been made on or before first date of hearing, but had been made much later.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same the tenant respondent filed S.C.C. Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, which was registered as Revision No. 100 of 1988. The Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Bijnor, vide judgment dated 2.2.2002 allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 29.7.1998 and dismissed the suit of the landlord holding that the tenant had not committed default and on the date of the notice the tenant had not paid arrears of 4 months rent and, therefore, the landlord could not prosecute the appeal under Section 20(2) of the 1972 Act.