SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. IVTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the tenant is directed against the judgment and orders dated 17.9.1984 and 30.9.1982, passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur and the Judge Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur, whereby the suit of the respondent No. 3 Devendra Bahadur Srivastava for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioners has been decreed and the revision of the tenant petitioner against the same has been dismissed.

(2.) The dispute relates to residential portion in the tenancy of the petitioners situate at 414 Ismailpur, Gorakhpur which is owned by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner was a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 50 in the upper northeast portion of the said building (hereinafter referred to as the premises in dispute). The petitioner committed default in payment of rent from March, 1978, despite request by the respondent No. 3. As the arrears were not paid, the respondent No. 3 gave notice dated 22.9.1979 demanding the arrears and to vacate the premises within 30 days. The petitioner failed to satisfy the demand and replied denying the contents of the notice. The respondent No. 3 thereafter filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 367 of 1979 in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur. The petitioner contested the suit and raised the following issues : Firstly that the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was invalid ; secondly there was no dues against the petitioner and he was not in arrears ; thirdly the landlord by conduct had waived the notice which was the basis for filing the suit, as such there being no subsequent notice the present suit was liable to be dismissed and lastly that he had made the deposits under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short referred to as the Act) and was entitled to benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act having deposited the arrears before the first date of hearing. Both the parties led evidence in support of their contentions. The trial court vide judgment dated 30.4.1982, while decreeing the suit recorded the following findings: Firstly that the notice was a valid notice ; secondly the liability to pay the water tax and the house tax was on the petitioner : thirdly there was default of more than four months rent on the part of the petitioner; fourthly the petitioner was not entitled to the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act and as such no protection under Section 20 (4) of the Act could be given to the tenant.

(3.) Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act which was registered as Civil Revision No. 266 of 1982, Sushil Kumar Srivastava v. Devendra Bahadur Srivastava. The revisional court vide judgment dated 17.9.1984 agreed with all the findings of the trial court except that it allowed one month's benefit with regard to the arrears of rent to the petitioner tenant and modified the decree to the extent that the liability to pay the rent would begin from April, 1978 and not from March, 1978 as claimed in the plaint and as decreed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two judgments the tenant has filed the present writ petition.