SURAJ BHAN VERMA Vs. HARI OM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant and for recovery of arrears of rent, means profits etc. The trial court, on the finding that the shop in dispute was a post 1951 construction and consequently U. P. Act No. III of 1947 was not applicable and that the tenancy had been terminated by a valid notice, decreed the suit for ejectment and for recovery of Rs. 674.00 and future and pend-entilite means profits at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per month. The appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed by the lower appellate court with costs and the decree of the trial court was affirmed.

(2.) Before the defendant appellant filed the present appeal on 27-7-1972 the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force with effect from 15-7-1972. The only question involved in the appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to the protection provided by Sections 39/40 of the Act.

(3.) It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit, on the direction of the trial court, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 290.00 on 18-12-1969 towards rent damages for use and occupation. On the suit being decreed he made a further deposit of Rs. 674.00, the entire decretal amount, in the trial court on 4-12-1971. During the pendency of the appeal in the court below he deposited Rs. 1052.00 in pursuance of the condition imposed by the appellate court for staying the execution of the decree for ejectment. In this way a sum of Rs. 2116/- was deposited by the appellant in pursuance of the orders of the Court. A further sum of Rs. 30.00was deposited on 18-7-1972. As against a sum of Rs. 2056/- due against him towards the entire decretal amount inclusive of costs and rent damages for use and occupation upto July, 1972, the appellant deposited a total sum of Rs. 2146/-. A further sum of Rs. 200.00, was deposited on 9-8-1972 i.e. within one month from the date of the enforcement of the Act. The appellant claimed that no decree for his eviction could be passed as he has complied with the conditions imposed by Sec. 39 of the Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent contended that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit afforded by the Act as no suit or proceedings were pending on the date of commencement of the Act and necessary deposits were not made in the proper court.