BIRJU @ MANMOHAN AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. SUKHBIRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the sole respondent, who has appeared through caveat. Landlady respondent on 20.09.1982 filed suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of default in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 32 of 1982. In the plaint it was stated that rate of rent was Rs. 250/ - per month and tenant had not paid the rent since 1976. It was also pleaded that U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) was not applicable to the building in dispute as building was constructed within ten years from the date of filing of the suit. Total rent due till the filing of the suit was alleged to be Rs. 9250/ -. Trial Court decreed the suit on 24.2.2007 holding that firstly U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute and secondly even if version of the tenant regarding applicability of the Act was accepted still tenant was liable to eviction as he had not completely complied with provisions of section 20(4) of the Act. Against the said judgment and decree, S.C.C. Revision No. 09 of 2007 was filed, which was dismissed by A.D.J., Court No. 7, Muzaffar Nagar on 16.08.2007, hence this writ petition.

(2.) I do not find any error in the findings of the Courts below to the effect that even if U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is held to be applicable to the building in dispute still tenant was liable to eviction as he had not made complete deposits in accordance with the provisions of section 20(4) of the Act. On 22.11.1982, tenant deposited Rs. 4,000/ -. Learned Counsel for the tenant -petitioners states that the said amount was deposited after obtaining permission of the Court. However, the Courts below found that the rent was due w.e.f. 1.12.1976. Accordingly, the rent, which was due till the filing of the suit came to Rs. 9250/ -. Deposited amount of Rs. 4,000/ - was less than half of the said amount. Apart from it interest and cost of the suit were also not deposited. Accordingly, there was absolutely no question of granting of benefit of section 20(4) of the Act to the tenant.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.