ANITA KUMARI AND OTHERS Vs. HAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendant in a suit filed against him for ejectment from the shop in dispute.

(2.) Admittedly the defendant was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per month. The shop is alleged to have been constructed in the year 1960-61 and as such the U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947 did not apply to it. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment after serving the notice of termination of tenancy dated 24-10-1965 which was served on the defendant on 18-11-1965. The rent was claimed from 10-10-1965 onwards. Various pleas were raised but ultimately the only point that remained for decision by the trial court was as to whether the defendant was entitled to claim the benefit of Sec. 39 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(3.) The trial court, after taking into account various deposits made by the defendant from time to time and the claim of the plaintiff for rent, interest and cost, came to the conclusion that the defendant had not committed default in the payment of rent. Aggrieved against this decision the plaintiff went up in appeal and the Additional Civil Judge, Moradabad, who, disagreeing with the learned Munsif, decreed the plaintiffs suit on the finding that the defendant had not deposited the entire amount required under Sec. 39 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The defendant has thus come up in second appeal before this Court.