KHUSHAL SINGH Vs. AMNA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT JSCC Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18. 11. 2008 and decree dated 02. 12. 2008 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai in JSCC Case No. 7 of 2005 (Smt. Amna Khatoon Vs. Sri Khushal Singh [deceased]and others ).

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that Khushal Singh was tenant of the shop situated at Mohalla Patel Nagar Orai, District Jalaun. Said premises in question had been purchased by Smt. Amana Khatoon from Atma Prakash, erstwhile landlord. Khushal Singh was tenant of the premises in question at the rent of Rs. 1000/- per month. As per Revisionist said rent in question was sought to be tendered by way of money order. Said amount in question was refused to be accepted. In this background Khushal Singh instituted Misc. Case No. 29 of 2003 under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Orai. In the said proceeding land lady appeared and filed her objection on 06. 02. 2004 and order was passed allowing application under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. After said order has been passed on 16. 04. 2004 land lady gave notice to the tenant clearly and categorically mentioning therein that she is prepared to accept the rent in question and same may by paid directly. Said notice which has been sent was replied by Khushal Singh on 29. 04. 2004 giving therein details that notice sent was illegal and order passed under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has already been passed and deposits are being made accordingly. Revision has also been preferred against the order dated 06. 02. 2004 being Revision No. 3 of 2004 and same was also rejected on 31. 05. 2005. Against the said order Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58923 of 2005 was filed before this Court and this Court had dismissed the aforesaid writ petition but made observation that any suit which may be filed by land lady against the tenant, merely because Civil Judge (JD) has permitted the tenant to deposit the rent it does not mean that the deposit will be treated as valid and suit being filed then said issue would be decided without being influenced by any of the observation made in the orders passed by Civil Judge (JD) or Revisional Court in the judgements impugned in the instant writ petition. . Thereafter on 01. 09. 2005 notice was given by land lady and said notice was replied on 07. 09. 2005. On 14. 11. 2005 JSCC Suit No. 7 of 2005 has been field for arrears of rent and ejectment. In these proceedings so undertaken written statement was filed on 28. 07. 2006. An application under Order 15 Rule 5 of C. P. C has also been moved on 18. 08. 2006 and to the same objection has been filed on 02. 09. 2006. Thereafter final judgment has been passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai in JSCC Case No. 7 of 2005 (Smt. Amna Khatoon Vs. Sri Khushal Singh [deceased]and others) by holding that deposit made under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were not valid deposit and further on first date of hearing amount in question has not been deposited, and said amount was short. Deposits made were conditional deposit as such benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 cannot be extended. At this juncture present Civil Revision has been filed. Rs. S. B. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists contended with vehemence that in the present case totally arbitrary view has been taken that deposits made under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were not valid deposit whereas there was deliberate refusal on the part of the land lady to accept rent as such said deposit has been validly made, in this background finding of fact recorded on the said score is perverse and unreasonable. Coupled with this facts of the case would clearly demonstrate that on first date of hearing as envisaged under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 deposits as contemplated has been made as such revisionist were entitle to be saved from rigours of eviction decree, as such judgment and order passed in JSCC suit is unsustainable and liable to be quashed/set aside.

(3.) COUNTERING said submission Sri Subhash Kumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of land lady contended with vehemence that fact and circumstances of the case clearly demonstrates that deposits made under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 cannot be termed to be valid deposits as even after receipt of notice of land lady that she was ready and willing to accept the rent and same be paid directly and not in Court ans as same was never done as such finding of fact returned is neither perverse nor unreasonable, as such order impugned on this score is not at all liable to be interfered with. Coupled with this it has been contended that on the first date of hearing amount in question has not been deposited and deposit in question was short and on application being made to withdraw the said amount objections had been filed opposing withdrawal, as such this is clear cut case of conditional deposit and thus, by no stretch of imagination benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 could be extended, as such JSCC Revision as it has been framed and drawn is liable to be dismissed.