R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and decree dated 2.12.1997 whereby the suit filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 for ejectment and recovery of rent was decreed by the trial Court and the judgment and order dated 14.12.1999 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the Revisional Court.
(2.) It appears that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages on the ground of default and structural alternations in the building in question. It was pleaded that petitioners was in arrears of rent from 1.7.1980, therefore, a notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served on 1.5.1984 demanding the rent from 1.7.1980 to 30.3.1984. On receipt of notice, the amount of arrears of rent was not tendered to the landlord. It was, however, stated that the rent 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. The suit was contested by the defendants petitioners pleading that they were not defaulters nor made any material alteration diminishing the value of the building in question. Parties, in support of their cases, produced evidence, oral and documentary. Ultimately, the suit was decreed by trial Court on 18.3.1986. Challenging the validity of the said decree, petitioners filed a revision which was allowed by judgment and order dated 8.8.1991 on some technical ground and Suit No. 366 of 1984 was dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiffs respondents again served a notice of demand dated 14.3.1992 demanding the rent from 1.7.1980 to the date of notice. The said notice was replied by the petitioners contending that they were not in arrears of rent, the amount of rent was already deposited in the Court under Section 30 of the Act. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed two issues. One on the questions of default and the other on structural alterations in the building in question. The trial Court recorded finding on the question of default against the petitioners. It was held that within 30 days on receipt of the notice, the rent was not tendered to the landlord, consequently they were defaulters within the meaning of term used under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. It was also held that the deposit made by the petitioners under Section 30 of the Act was also not valid and on that basis, no advantage could be given as Misc. Case No. 13 of 1992 was dismissed for default. It was also held that petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. On the issue of structural alteration, it was held that by the said alterations, the value of the building was not diminished. Having recorded the aforesaid findings, the suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 2.12.1997 for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages. Challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, petitioners filed a revision before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court, after hearing the parties, also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 14.12.1999. Hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel vehemently urged that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners cannot be held to be defaulter. It was submitted that the whole amount was deposited under Section 30 of the Act, therefore, the decree of ejectment could not be passed against the petitioners.;