AJAI KUMAR Vs. MUNNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the landlord against the judgment and order dated 24.11.1994, passed by respondent No. 4, whereby the Revision No. 74 of 1987 filed by the tenant was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial court only for deciding afresh the issue relating to service of notice and the finding on the other issues recorded by the trial court with regard to default in payment of rent and with regard to sub-tenancy were affirmed.

(2.) Petitioners are the owner and landlord of premises No. 99/12, Civil Lines, Lalitpur, of which opposite party No. 1, Munna Lal was a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 30 per month. It is alleged that Munna Lal sublet the premises in dispute in favour of respondent No. 2 Sewa Ram. On the ground of default as well as subletting, the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment, after giving notice as contemplated under law. This was registered as Suit No. 24 of 1981 in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lalitpur. The respondent No. 2 Sewa Ram did not contest the suit and the case had preceded ex parte against him. The respondent No. 1 Munna Lal contested the suit and filed his written statement inter alia alleging that no valid notice had been served upon him ; that he has deposited the rent under Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short referred to as the Act) and further there was no subletting by him. Initially the trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 10.7.1985, however upon revision the matter was remanded vide judgment dated 17.8.1987 and the trial court was directed to proceed with the matter afresh in accordance with law.

(3.) The trial court, after remand vide judgment dated 18.11.1987 held that firstly, there was default of more than 4 months rent by the tenant, secondly, the respondent No. 1 had sublet the premises in dispute to respondent No. 2 and thirdly, notice had been validly served by refusal, and fourthly, as the tenant has not made deposits as required under law he was not. entitled to protection from ejectment under Section 20 (4) of the Act. On these findings the trial court decreed the suit.