CHHOTEY LAL Vs. IIND ADDL DISTT SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of a suit for eviction filed by landlords respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against original tenant Chhotey Lal since deceased and survived by legal representative. Before filing suit notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was sent by the landlord to the tenant through registered post on 29.3.1979, which according to the postman was refused by the tenant on 30.3.1979. According to the landlord rent was Rs. 4.78 per month and according to the tenant it was only Rs. 3.12 per month. Landlord had complained that tenant had not paid rent since 1.1.64. Tenant denied receipt of notice and asserted that on 30.3.1979 when the notice was alleged to have been refused by him he was in Bhopal in connection with his treatment. The trial court held that notice was not refused by the tenant on the following grounds :

(2.) The revisional court disagreed with the trial court on the question of benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. In this regard. 1 find that finding of the trial court was erroneous in law and was rightly reversed by the revisional court. The trial court granted the benefit of the said provision to the tenant on the legal assumption that tenant was required to deposit only that much rent on the first date of hearing which was legally recoverable. The trial court was labouring under the misconception of law that tenant was not required to deposit time barred rent. It is settled that in order to claim the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act it is essential for the tenant to deposit even the time barred rent.

(3.) The revisional court reversed the finding of the trial court in respect of service of notice and held that tenant refused to accept the notice.