PADAMNABH JAI KISHAN Vs. MOHAN LAL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the respondent was served at the stage of admission and after exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits it is being decided finally at the admission stage.

(2.) HEARD counsel for the parties. In the present case a suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent, water tax, sewage tax and also damages for wrongful use and occupation was filed. The plaintiff's case is that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are partners and tenants of the disputed premises of the plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs. 535/-. It is alleged that in the year 1982 the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of arrears from 1.6.1981 to 31.10.1982 against defendant No. 2. In that case the trial Court repelled the other pleas of defendant Jai Kishan but held that defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 were the tenants. Aggrieved as against that a revision (Civil Revision No. 647 of 1984) preferred by defendant No. 2 is pending for disposal. However, the present suit has arisen on account of the applicants-defendant-tenants having failed to pay the rent from 1.6.1985 to 31.1.1988. The notice by the plaintiff-respondent was served under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the said notice demand of rent for the aforesaid period along with water tax and sewage tax from Ist June, 1985 to 31st January, 1988 was also made while it is admitted that the tenant-applicant has paid rent from 1st November, 1982 to 30th November, 1985 after service of demand made on him. On the basis of that notice suit was filed. As per plaint the relief sought was for a decree of a sum of Rs. 20474.44 from 1.6.85 to 28th February, 1988 on account of rent and water tax as well as sewage tax from 1st May, 1985 to 28th February, 1988 along with interest at the rate of Rs. 9% and decree for pendente lite and future damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 535.

(3.) THE main contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that since he has deposited entire rent including water tax and sewage tax as demanded by the plaintiff-respondent in accordance with Section 20(4) of the aforesaid Act, the decree for eviction granted by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Argument was that since he has deposited every amount demanded as mentioned in the notice and also for which relief was claimed in the plaint, the finding of the trial Court that since he has not deposited the rent for the period 1st June, 1981 to 31st October, 1982 which is admittedly the subject-matter of the previous suit benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act cannot be given to the tenant is patently erroneous and liable to be set aside. Reliance was placed on the case of Krishna Manohar Dhawan v. VIIth Addl. District Judge Kanpur, (1983)1 All Rent Case 823. In this case what has been held is quoted below :-