R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 29.1.2000 whereby the Suit filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 was decreed by the trial Court and the order dated 27.7.2000 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed.
(2.) It appears that it was on 16.11.1989 that the respondent No. 3 sent a notice of termination of tenancy and demand demanding the rent from 1.1.1988 to October 1989. The said notice was served upon the petitioner on 19.11.1989. Instead of making payment of amount of arrears of rent to the respondent No. 3, the petitioner gave a reply of the said notice on 27.11.1989 contending that the amount of rent was already 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. The respondent No. 3 filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 474 of 1990 for ejectment and recovery of rent on the ground of default. Parties, in support of their cases, produced evidence, oral and documentary. The trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 30.7.1998, struck off the defence of the petitioner and proceeded to decide the case. The suit was ultimately decreed by the trial Court on 29.1.2000. Challenging the validity of the said decree, the petitioner filed a revision before the Court below which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 27.7.2000. Hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that since the respondent No. 3 refused to accept the rent, therefore, the same was deposited under Section 30 of the Act. The said amount, according to him, shall be deemed to have been paid to the respondent No. 3, the Courts below have acted illegally in decreeing the Suit filed by the respondent No. 3 and dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. The said order was, therefore, liable to be set aside.;