HARI SINGH Vs. BRAHM NARAYAN MEHROTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision against the decree and judgment dated May 21, 1976 of the II Addl. District Judge, Nainital in C. R. No. 22 of 1975 confirming the decree and judgment of the Judge Small Causes Court, Kashipur at Nainital in S.C.C. suit no. 68 of 1974 decided on 28-4- 1975 (wrongly shown in the certified copy of the trial court as 1-1-1972) by which the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant from the house in suit and for recovery of arrears of rent from 1-11-1972 to 30-4-1974 and pendentelite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 31.25 per month was decreed. The plaintiff brought the suit on the allegations that the house in dispute originally belonged to his father Hari Karan Das, who died on 8-3-1972 and that he had purchased that house during the life time of his father from him by means of a sale deed dated November, 1962. The case of the plaintiff further' is that his father no doubt continued to realise rent from the defendant even after its purchase. The defendant, therefore, was informed by his father that the house had been purchased by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had not paid rent since 1-11-1972 and was in default inspite of notice and as such the suit was brought for ejectment and recovery or arrears of rent.

(2.) THE defence was that the house belonged to Har Karan Das and on his death there was a dispute among his heirs in respect of the house and so the defendant had deposited the entire rent from 1-11-1972 under Sec. 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) ; and that he had informed the plaintiff to withdraw the amount on the proof of his title. THE defendant had again deposited a sum of Rs. 925.66 Np. under Section 20(4) of the said Act at the time of the first hearing and he claimed benefit of that deposit as well.

(3.) IN revision, the II Addl. District Judge arrived at the same conclusion, and dismissed the revision. He refused to allow the benefit under Sec. 20(4) of the Act, only on the finding that the defendant had not deposited full costs of the suit. It, however, recorded a clear finding on the other point as follows :