KHARAK SINGH Vs. CHETAN PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit was instituted on 11th May, 1971, by Chetan Prakash opposite party against the applicant for ejectment from a shop and for arrears of rent and damages In paragraph 3 of the plaint it was stated that the above shop was constructed after the year 1951. During the pendency of the suit the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, came into force on 15th July, 1972. An application was made on 14th August, 1972, by the defendant applicant with a prayer for being granted permission to make the necessary deposit contemplated by Section 39 of the aforesaid Act. A tender was also submitted on the same date. The duplicate and triplicate of the tender seems to have been returned to the applicant after making necessary endorsement by the Munsarim on 16th August, 1972. There is nothing on the record to indicate the date on which the amount was actually deposited. The suit ultimately came up for hearing on 6th March, 1973. On that date a sum of Rs. 180/- representing the rent payable upto 28th February, 1973, was paid in cash by the applicant to the plaintiff's counsel and the suit was dismissed on that date by giving benefit of Section 39 of the Act to the applicant. Against that order a revision was filed by the opposite party which came up before the IV Additional District Judge, Meerut, on 18th November, 1974, and the revision was allowed on the ground that there was no evidence on record showing the date of deposit of the amount and consequently the applicant could not be given the benefit of Section 39. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid order by filing the present revision in this Court.

(2.) THE revision came up for hearing before me on 22nd November, 1975 and on that date two issues were remitted to the IV Additional District Judge, Meerut for recording finding thereon. THEse issues were ; 1.On what date was the amount mentioned in the tender submitted on 14th August, 1972, actually deposited ? 2.Whether the aforesaid deposit was made in pursuance of the tender aforesaid and was a valid deposit ?

(3.) IN the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of the IV Additional District Judge dated 18th November, 1974 is set aside and that of the Judge Small Cause Court, Meerut dated 6th March, 1973 is restored. The applicant will be entitled to his costs. Revision allowed.