NOOR MOHAMMAD Vs. DILFAYYAZ & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.9.2009, Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which the revision filed by the petitoner has been rejected.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that there was no default on his part as the rent was being deposited under Section 30 of the Act. Considering this fact, the Judge Small Causes Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner is not in arrears for more than four months. It cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the revisional court has recorded a finding of fact after taking into consideration all the relevant materials on record. Admittedly the rent of two years have not been deposited including the interest as well as the expenditure and the counsel fee. Any deposit made under Section 30 of the Act cannot be treated to be sufficient deposit.