RANG NATH Vs. VITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's petition challenging the order of the revisional court dated 5.10.93 whereby decree of eviction passed by the trial court has been set aside.

(2.) The dispute relates to a shop in respect of which suit for eviction was filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the allegations that respondent No. 3. owner of the Firm-respondent No. 2 was inducted as tenant in the disputed shop from 1.12.1975 at a monthly rent of Rs. 200 plus water tax at the rate of Rs. 19.83 paise per month ; that the rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 300 per month from 1.12.1983 and then again to Rs. 400 per month with effect from 1.9.87 which was paid by the defendants till October, 1987 but water tax at the rate of Rs. 19.83 per month from 1.12.1975 to 25.7.88 amounting to Rs. 3.000.17 palse was not paid despite service of notice ; that the defendant tenant also had not paid rent from 1.11.1987 despite service of notice of demand ; and that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by notice dated 25.7.88. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 3053.82 as arrears of water lax and Rs. 3918.99 as arrears of rent and damages for the use and occupation in addition to the decree of eviction. The tenant respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contested the suit stating that they were tenants at the rate of Rs. 100 per month which also Included house tax, water tax and sewer tax. They specifically denied that the rate of rent was Rs. 200 per month or that the same was enhanced to Rs. 300 and then to Rs. 400 per month. According to their case, after the receipt of notice rent for the months of July. August, and September, 1988 was sent to the plaintiff by money order which was not accepted by him. hence the same was deposited under Section 30 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). it was further pleaded by the defendants that they had paid to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 20.000 for repairs of the shop and it was agreed by the landlord that the tenant could adjust the said amount at the rate of Rs. 50 per month from the rent payable by them and if it was not so adjusted the defendants would be entitled to get back the said amount along with Interest at the rate of 18% per annum. it was further pleaded that no decree of eviction could be passed as the defendants have unconditionally deposited an amount of Rs. 25.000 under Section 20 (4) of the Act on the date of first hearing.

(3.) The trial court decreed the suit holding that initially rate of rent was Rs. 100 per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 150 per month ; that the tenants committed default in payment of rent and were liable to eviction and that no benefit could be extended to them under Section 20 (4) of the Act as the deposit made by them was a conditional one. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Revision No. 143 of 1991 under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act which has been allowed by the revisional court by the impugned judgment.