- (1.) Heard Mr. Vimal Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 raised objection against the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has availed remedy by filing review against the order impugned, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. However, I am of the view that against the order which is in existence the writ petition is well maintainable.
(2.) Being aggrieved with order dated 31.7.2009 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Faizabad in SCC Suit No. 12/2000 as also the order dated 6.4.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Revision No. 96/2009, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the suit for eviction can be instituted only on the conditions provided under section 20(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Section 20(2) is reproduced herein under: A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely; (a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand: Provided that in relation to a tenant who is a member of the armed forces of the union and in whose favour the prescribed authority under the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 (Act IV of 1925) has issued a certificate that he is serving under special conditions within the meaning of section 3 of that Act or where he has died by enemy action while so serving, then in relation to his heirs, the words "four months" in this clause shall be deemed to have been substituted by the words "one year; (b) that the tenant has wilfully cause or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the building; (c) that the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction or structural alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it; (d) that the tenant [has without the consent in writing of the landlord used it for a purpose other than the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the building or otherwise done any act which is inconsistent with use], or has been convicted under any law for the time being in force of an offence of using the building or allowing it to be used for illegal or immoral purposes; (e) that the tenant has sub-let, in contravention of the provisions of section 25, or as the case may be, of the old Act the whole or any part of the building; (f) that the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord, and that latter has not waived his right of re-entry or condoned the conduct of the tenant; (g) that the tenant was allowed to occupy the building as part of his contract of employment under the landlord, and his employment has ceased.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner paid the rent till the month of January, 1999 which is admitted. Thereafter the petitioner made effort to pay the rent, but the same was refused by the opposite parties 1 and 2, then he also tried to pay the same through the money orders but same was also not accepted, under the circumstance with necessary application moved before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faizabad he deposited the arrears of rent in the Court. Accordingly he submits that till February, 2000 the petitioner has paid rent. The date of notice for eviction is 9.5.2000. By the date of notice the petitioner can be said to have committed default in making payment of rent only for two months. In this background he submits that he had not committed default in payment of rent for four months.;