SATYADEO PANGORIA Vs. GOPAL DHARMSHALA SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard Sri Prakash Gupta, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B. N. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, landlord, opposite parties.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. THE plaintiff contended that the defendant had not paid the rent and, therefore, was liable to be evicted from the premises in question. THE defendant resisted the suit and denied that he was in arrears of rent. However, the defendant, in order to avoid all controversy, took protection under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and deposited a sum of Rs. 4,886.69 paise towards arrears of rent, cost, etc. on 22.9.1978, praying that since he had deposited the entire rent, etc. on the first date of hearing, the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act should be given to him and he should be discharged from the liability of ejectment. THE court below rejected the application and decreed the suit for ejectment and arrears on the ground that the applicant had not deposited the amount on the first date of hearing and that the original tenant, having died after the determination of the tenancy and the statutory tenancy, not being heritable, consequently, the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act could not be passed on to the heirs of the tenant.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire rent was deposited on 22nd September, 1978. This fact has been alleged in paragraph 7 of the affidavit accompanying the stay application. THE landlord, opp. party has not denied this fact in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit but disputed that the amount was not deposited on the first date of hearing. From the said averments, it is clear that the landlord, opp. party has not denied the factum of the deposit of the amount by the tenant before the court below.