MOHD RAFIQ Vs. FIRST ADDL D J MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) T. P. Garg, J. The petitioner has challenged the judgment andxjecree dated 17-3-1979 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut, decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner md the judgment dated 14-9-1983, dismissing the revision against the said judgment "by. respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant. THE landlord-respondents filed suit No. 377 of 1975 for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner on the allegation that he failed to pay arrears of rent since 1-9-1973. A notice of demand and terminating his tenancy was sent on 25-2-1975 but it was refused by the petitioner. He did not comply with the notice and thereby committed default. THE petitioner filed written statement and denied that he refused to accept the notice dated 25-2-1975. His main defence was that he had sent money order to the landlord in January 1974 but he refused the same on 1. 0-1-1974. He again sent money order for Rs. 300 for rent for the month of September 1973 to August 1974 which was again refused by the landlord-respondents on 20-9-1974. He, thereafter deposited the rent for the months of September 1973 to January 19745 in the Court of Munsif, Meerut in Misc. Case No. 359 of 1974 under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting , Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1972 (here in after referred to as the Act ). THE Court directed to deposit the amount. He again deposited the rent for the months of February 1975 to May 1975 in the same proceedings. THE petitioner has not committed any default in payment of arrears of rent.

(3.) IN Janki Prasad Misra v. Ranbir Singh Rathore, 1965 ALJ 942, it was held that under Section 7-C of U. P. (Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1947, the Munsif is not required to determine the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant. All that he has to do on deposit of rent under Section 7-C is to issue a notice to the landlord informing him that such deposit has been made. It was observed is follows:- "a tenant may allege that the landlord has refused to accept any rent lawfully paid to him and may deposit it but the section itself does not require the Munsif to go into the question whether the landlord refuses to accept the rent lawfully or otherwise. This ques tion is a question of fact to be determined in appropriate proceedings and if and when the question of refusal by the landlord of rent lawfully paid to him arises and it has been held that the deposit was made of any rent which the-landlord had unlawfully refused to accept, the provisions of sub-section (6) will apply. " IN Shanti Devi v. Chandra Mukhi, 1967 ALT 788, wherein the Munsif had rejected the application and directed the applicant under Section 7-C (2) to withdraw the amount deposited by her on a controversy arising whether the rent had been deposited in terms of Section7-C (2) and the benefit of Section 7-C (2) was available, it was held than the order of Munsif can be examined in a regular suit and it was found that the Munsifs order was wrong and the deposit made could not be regarded by reason of the Munsif's order as not made under Section 7-C (2) of the Act. The provisions of Section 30 of the Act are similar to the provisions of Section 7-C of the Act, referred to above. It is thus clear that, the order of Munsif either accepting the deposit or rejecting the application for deposit is not final or conclusive and it can be examined as to whether the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act is valid.