BHAGIRATH Vs. A D J MAHOBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 2, Sitaram filed S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 1987 against Bhagirath (petitioner), Sunderlal, Ayodhya Prasad and Sri Kalu Ram (Sunderlal, Ayodhya Prasad and Kalu Ram are proforma respondents 3 to 6 in this writ petition). Property in dispute is a shop. Relief claimed in the plaint was for possession on the ground of default and recovery of arrears of rent.

(3.) THERE cannot be any doubt that in order to avail the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, even time barred rent is required to be deposited by the tenant. This proposition has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.