VINOD KUMAR Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the landlord for setting aside the order dated 4th December, 1997 passed by the Revisional Court by which the Revision was allowed and the Judgment and order dated 23rd november, 1994 passed by the Judge Small Cause Courts was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

(2.) THE dispute in the present petition relates to a shop situated in mohallah lajpat Nagar of which Mewa Lal was the owner and landlord. Respondent om Prakash was a tenant in the shop @ Rs. 100/- per month. Mewa Lal sold the shop in dispute by a registered sale deed dated 23rd August, 1990 executed in favour of the petitioner who consequently became the landlord. It is said that a registered notice dated 26th December, 1990 was sent by the landlord to the tenant informing the tenant about the execution of the sale deed dated 23rd august, 1990 and the tenancy was also terminated. Another notice was also sent by registered post on 31st January, 1991 to the same effect. There is a serious dispute between parties about the service of the aforesaid two notices dated 26th December, 1990 and 31st January, 1991 as the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord is that the notices were served by refusal whereas the tenant asserts that he had never refused to accept the notices.

(3.) SCC Suit No. 3 of 1991 was thereafter filed by the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The suit was decreed. The tenant filed a revision, which has been allowed. The dispute that arose before the Courts below was as to whether the notices dated 26th December, 1990 and 31st January, 1991 had been served upon the defendants and whether the tenant was in arrears of rent for a period of four months and whether the tenant had deposited the entire arrears of rent along with damages and interest together with the landlords cost of the suit after deducting any amount deposited under section 30 (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as was required to be done under section 20 (4) of the Act on the first date of hearing.