MAN MOHAN DIXIT Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. C. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, appearing for the contest ing respondent No. 3.

(2.) PRESENT petition arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent. The suit was filed by respondent No. 3 on the ground of default. The petitioner, who was defen dant in the said suit, contested the suit and pleaded that he was not the defaulter and further he was entitled to the benefit of sub section (4) of Section 20 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. He has further pleaded that entire rent was deposited by the petitioner in the case under Section 30 of the Act. The trial Court after hearing the parties and perusing the record, recorded the findings on relevant issues in favour of the petitioner It was held that he was not defaulter as the rent was already deposited by him under Section 30. In view of the said findings it was observed that it was not necessary to decide as to whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of sub section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. Having recorded the said findings the suit filed by respondent No. 3 was dismissed.

(3.) ON the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that there was nothing on the record to substan tiate as to whether the amount in question was deposited by the petitioner under Sec tion 30 of the Act. Therefore, the revisional Court was justified in holding that the said deposit was not made and the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent. He has further submitted that the revisional Court rightly set aside the findings recorded by the trial Court and allowed the revision and decreed the suit.