HARI SHANKAR Vs. OM PRAKASH (SINCE DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's petition arising out of suit filed for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. Petitioner tenant contends that he had deposited entire amount claimed by the landlord towards rent etc. on the date of first hearing of suit before the court concerned, and therefore, denial of protection under Sec. 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is bad in law. It is also contended that only temporary constructions were raised, and even otherwise provisions of Sec. 20(2)(c) of the Act were not attracted, and decree for eviction passed by the courts below are unsustainable.

(2.) Records reveal that Small Causes Suit No.76 of 2001 was filed by deceased Om Prakash for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent with the allegation that he owned a permanent shop, which was let out to the petitioner tenant. As the landlord was 84 years of age, he had appointed his son as his agent, who was receiving rent on his behalf. It was claimed that rent @ Rs.150.00 per month was not paid, and that taxes imposed by the municipal authority, as well as electricity dues were also not cleared. A further ground was taken to the effect that unauthorized structure had been raised by the tenant, which disfigured the shop and diminished its value or utility. The tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 4.5.1999, 4.9.2001, and again on 26.9.2001, but a false reply was given to it, and even the rent was not paid. The total outstanding as on 26.9.2001 was shown to be Rs.8,210.00.

(3.) Suit was contested stating that originally the rent was Rs.70.00 per month, and was successively increased to Rs.75 and Rs.150.00, and the landlord subsequently stopped receiving rent. The rent was attempted to be sent by money order, but later the money order was also not accepted, as such, the rent was deposited in proceedings under Sec. 30(1) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No.01 of 199 Subsequently, Misc. Case No.07 of 2001 was again instituted. Since the landlord unauthorisedly attempted to evict the tenant, as such, Original Suit No.129 of 1999 was filed, in which a injunction was granted, and an appeal filed against it has also been rejected. It was also stated that the alleged unauthorized construction in the form of Tin structure existed from the initial stage of tenancy itself, and no unauthorized construction was raised by the tenant, and that proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2A have also been initiated by the tenant, as the landlord was violating injunction. The tenant unconditionally deposited a sum of Rs.13,000.00, under Sec. 20(4) and maintainability of the suit has been questioned. It has also been held that proceedings are barred under Sec. 20(c) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.