MOHD MUSTKEEM SIDDIQUI Vs. JAHIDA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is tenant of the premises in question, i.e. House No. 105/155, Chamanganj, Kanpur, which is a residential accommodation, challenges the order dated 14th July, 2003, passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur, under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-landlord, respondent in this writ petition, for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant from the premises in question has been decreed and revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 14th July, 2003, has been dismissed summarily by the revisional court vide order dated 3rd September, 2003, on the ground that the tenant-petitioner has not deposited any amount as directed by the revisional court, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-9 and 13 to the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner, who is a tenant of the premises in question, has been served with a notice by the respondent-landlord terminating his tenancy on the ground that the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'the Act', do not apply to the premises in question and further that the tenant petitioner is in arrears of rent and has not paid the same in spite of repeated demand, thus has made himself liable for ejectment from the premises in question. In rebuttal, the tenant-petitioner denied the allegations made by the respondent-landlord, firstly that the premises is covered with the provisions of the Act, and secondly the rent of the premises in question is Rs. 125 per month and not Rs. 300 per month, as alleged by the landlord and further that there are no arrears and in any view of the matter on the first date of hearing, the tenant has already deposited the entire admitted rent and other dues as contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, therefore he is not liable to be evicted even if there was any default, as alleged by the respondent-landlord.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the trial court found that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the premises in question. On the question of monthly rent, the trial court found that the rent is Rs. 300 per month. The trial court further found that the tenant-petitioner has not paid the rent on demand and has not deposited the entire rent as contemplated under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, therefore the suit was decreed and the tenant was directed to be evicted from the premises in question.