GAFOORAN Vs. XIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 3, Sri Sirajudddin, filed S.C.C. Suit No. 341 of 1988 against original petitioner for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent. Admitted rate of rent is Rs. 18 per month. Property in dispute is residential in nature and contains one room. In the plaint, it was alleged that defendant had not paid rent from 1.7.1984 to 31.3.1988 inspite of notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 6.4.1988 served on 9.4.1988. In para 4 of the plaint it was specifically stated : "That defendant without tendering rent to plaintiff began to deposit rent under Section 30 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in proceedings No. 404/70 of 1985, Gafooran Nisa v. Siraj Uddin but on 31.7.1985 the Court of Munsif city passed the orders directing defendant to make payment of rent directly to plaintiff both file was consigned but defendant did not pay rent to plaintiff inspite of his willingness and orders of the Court."

(2.) DEFENDANT pleaded that in proceeding under Section 30 of the Act she had deposited the rent upto August, 1985. In the suit tenant deposited entire rent from August 1985 to September, 1988 on the first date of hearing in order to claim the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Total amount deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing was Rs. 1,035.

(3.) ALONGWITH the counter-affidavit landlord himself has filed his objections before Munsif in the case under Section 30 of the Act. In para 7 it was stated that no money order was tendered to landlord. Objections were filed on 3.7.1985. Affidavit was also filed. In para 8 of the affidavit sworn on 8.7.1985 it was stated that deponent is ready to accept the rent and tenant must be directed to pay rent to him and application under Section 30 should be dismissed. Munsif on 31.7.1985, passed an order on the objections of the landlord. In the said order it was directed that tenant should directly pay rent to the landlord. The tenant in her cross-examination, copy of which is annexed alongwith the counter-affidavit, stated that she had sent money order to the landlord. However, she could not say as to whether receipt or coupon of money order was filed by her or not.