VIMLA DEVI Vs. XTH ADDL DISTT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. This is the tenant's writ petition against the order dated 7-4-1993 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition, passed by Xth Addl. District Judge, Meerut) allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 2 (Smt. Pushpa Devi, W/o Sri Chaudhary Phool Chand), for eviction and the recovery of three years of rent.

(2.) PLAINTIFF-respondent No. 2 is landlady of the premises in dispute, which is a residential accommodation. Accord ing to her the petitioner is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 100 per month. This is disputed by the tenant-petitioner. According to the petitioner the rent is Rs. 40 per month only. The landlady gave notice dated 9-3-1987 terminating the tenancy of the tenant and claiming arrears of rent from 1-1-1982. Subsequently she filed a suit for the evic tion and arrears of rent before the respon dent No. 1 (Xth Addl. District Judge, Meerut ). This suit was numbered as S. CC. No. 99 of 1989; Pushpa Deviv. Vimla Devi. In this suit the tenant filed a written state ment and also deposited Rs. 3,000 as rent. Subsequently in this suit an issue was framed whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit or not? Xth A. D. J. by his order dated 20-7-1990 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) has held that it has no juris diction to try the suit. It directed the return of the plaint for the presentation before the proper Court. The landlady did not take the plaint back. Subsequently on the same notice she filed another suit which was numbered as 151 of 1990; Smt. Pushpa Devi v. Smt. Vimla Devi. In this suit defen dant again filed a written statement and deposited an amount of Rs. 1,570. Accord ing to defendant he was not in arrears of rent. He has paid entire rent till 1-4-1989 and the suit cannot be decreed. He further submitted that according to him in order to safeguard his interest he has deposited extra amount of Rs. 1,570 alongwith Rs. 3,000 deposited in the earlier suit S. CC. No. 99 of 1989; Pushpa Devi v. Smt. Vimla Devi, will cover the entire amount con templated under Section 20 (4) even if the rent is taken to be due from 1 -1 -1982.

(3.) IN view of the finding given by the trial Court the entire rent of amount till 1-4-1989 has already been paid to the landlady. The tenant is not liable for evic tion, but the trial Court should have decreed the suit for the arrears of rent from 1-4-1989 which was also deposited. The judgment of the revisional Court dated 7-4-1993 is quashed. The result is that the decree for the eviction of the tenant is set aside. The landlady would be entitled to a decree of rent from l-4-1989onwards.