S.G. JILANI Vs. RAGHUBIR SINGH TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY in filing this revision has been condoned vide order dated 22.1.1980 and in pursuance of the same, the revision itself was taken up for admission.

(2.) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by the Ist Additional Judge S.C.C. (Ist Additional District Judge) Jhansi in S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 1980 of his Court. The Suit had been filed by Raghubir Singh Tandon against the present revisionist for eviction the premises in suit and for arrears of rent and damages for occupation. The suit was decreed. Now the contention of the revisionist is that the order of the learned Court below is wrong, as there was a dispute as regards relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also because the revisionist had already vacated the premises and handed over the same to Ranjit Singh who had been recognised by the Housing Co-operative Society as the owner of the premises. It was further contended that the deposit had been made under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in face of contest putforth by Raghubir Singh Tandon and therefore the decree for arrears of rent and damages was not called for.

(3.) SO far as the deposit under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is concerned, in the case of Har Prasad Garg v. Dharmdeo Nagpal and others, 1981 ARC Page 26, it has been held that such an amount cannot be deducted towards rent and it is only the amount to be deposited under Section 30(1) which is deductible. The learned Court below has also considered this point and has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no bonafide dispute concerning the landlordship vis-a-vis the revisionist tenant and therefore he should not have resorted to proceeding under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. He cannot therefore take any benefit out of that deposit.