- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and decree dated 17-9-1983 whereby the suit filed by the contesting respondent was decreed by the trial Court and the judgment and order dated 13-7-1984 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dis missed by the Court below.
(2.) IT appears that the respondent No. 3 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the petitioner on the ground of default. IT was pleaded that inspite of service of notice, petitioner failed to pay the rent within the time prescribed under the law. He, therefore, committed default in payment of rent and was liable to be ejected from the building in question. The suit was contested and opposed by the petitioner who, in brief, contended that the rent of the building in question was deposited under Section 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), (for short the. Act), in the Munsif's Court and that he was not a defaulter within the meaning of the term used under the Act, therefore, he was not liable to be ejected from the building in question. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed relevant issues and recorded findings on the said issues in favour of the con testing respondent. It was held that the petitioner, after receipt of the notice, did not offer the rent demanded by the landlord, therefore, the deposit of the rent in the Court thereafter was illegal. On the basis of the same, he cannot take any benefit. He was a defaulter within the meaning of the term used under the Act. Having recorded the said findings, the suit was decreed by the trial Court. Challeng ing the validity of the said decree, a revision was filed before the Court below. The Court below also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision, hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole rent of the build ing in question was deposited under Sec tion 30 of the Act, therefore, there was no justification for the Court to eject the petitioner from the building in question by decreeing the suit and by dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. It was also urged that the petitioner was legally en titled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act.
(3.) 1 have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. The Courts below recorded con current findings of fact on the question of default. The said findings are based on 'relevant evidence "on the record and did not suffer from any illegality. Learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record and in the judgment and order passed by Courts below. So far as the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 is concerned, the said benefit was neither claimed before the trial Court nor before the Revisional Court, therefore, at this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be permitted to urge the said point as it involves the question of fact which cannot be dealt with and decided at this stage.;