Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. -
(1.)Leave is granted.
(2.)This appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 10594 of 1985 made on August 3, 2001.
(3.)A summary of facts leading to filing of this appeal may be noted to appreciate the controversy in this appeal. The dispute arises under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'the U. P. Act'). The appellants and the 3rd respondent are legal representatives of the tenant late Jai Prakash who died after institution of the suit (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant') and Respondents 1 and 2 are the landlords (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlords') of Shop No. 279, Main Bazar, Ward No. 9, Murad Nagar consisting of four chambers out of which two were covered with roof and two at the back without roof and saiban (for short, 'the suit building'). They purchased it from late Gopi Chand, the previous landlord. The suit building was let out to the said Jai Prakash on a monthly rent of Rs. 37.50. Alleging that the rent for the months of May, June and July, 1976 was not paid, the landlords sent a notice of demand for arrears of rent on March 30, 1977. In 1979, they filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, against the said Jai Prakash for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for the period from May 27, 1976 to February 22, 1978 and his ejectment from the suit building in the Small Cause Court, Ghaziabad. After service of summons the suit was adjourned to May 20, 1980 for final disposal. On that day the tenant sought time for filing written statement so the suit was adjourned to July 25, 1980 when time was, however, extended for filing written statement and the suit was posted for final disposal on October 10, 1980. The hearing of the suit was not taken up on that date as the Presiding Officer was on judicial training but the tenant deposited the entire amount in demand. Eventually, the suit was again adjourned to December 5, 1980. The tenant contested the suit alleging that the landlords refused to receive the rent and pleaded that as he had deposited the arrears of rent at the first hearing of the suit, in view of the provisions of S. 20(4) of the U.P. Act, the suit has to be dismissed.