BHAGWAN DASS AND OTHERS Vs. NARESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent. The accommodation was governed by the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiff landlords case for getting over the bar of Sec. 3 of the Act was that the defendant had defaulted in payment of more than three months rent in spite of the service upon him of a notice of demand, the date of the notice being June 17, 1964 and the date of its service being June 19, 1964. The defendants case was that the entire rent had been deposited under Sec. 7-C (2) of the Act as there was a bona fide dispute as to person entitled to receive the rent. It is not necessary to state the facts of that dispute for the purposes of this second appeal. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the lower appellate Court has confirmed that decree.

(2.) The only point urged before me by Mr. S. N. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants, is that the finding of the two courts below about the validity of the deposit under Sec. 7-C (2) of the Act is erroneous in law.

(3.) Now, in paragraph 5 of the plaint it was pleaded that the defendant gave a reply to the notice (notice dated 17-6-1964 served by the plaintiffs) stating wrong facts and alleging therein that the rent has been deposited under Sec. 7-C of the Act, but the rent had not been paid either to Lala Rang Lal, the deceased predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, or to the plaintiffs and the defendant had without any reason impleaded some strangers in those proceedings as a result of which the plaintiffs could not get the rent and at any rate the defendant is liable to pay the rent and further that the deposits made under Sec. 7-C of the Act are not admitted by the plaintiffs.