- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 15.1.2009 and 1.8.2009 by which a suit for eviction and arrears of rent filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant has been decreed by both the Courts below.
(2.) The respondent-landlord filed a small causes suit No. 14 of 2007 against the petitioner-tenant inter alia with the allegation that she is the sole owner and land lady of the disputed house where the petitioner is a tenant at a rate of Rs. 90/- per month. The original tenant was the grand father of the petitioner and on his death the tenancy was inherited by the grand mother Smt. Vijaya Lata and the father of the petitioner Shri Avinash Chandra Srivastava. It was further alleged that predecessor in interest of the landlord had filed suit No. 3 of 1980 against them which was decreed and in pursuance thereof part of the tenanted portion was vacated and possession handed over to the landlord and in the remaining portion Smt. Vijaya Lata Srivastava and Avinash Chandra Srivastava continued to remain in possession but after sometime, Avinash Chandera Srivastava left the disputed accommodation to reside in his ancestral house leaving the petitioner and Smt. Vijaya Lata Srivastava in possession. But she defaulted in payment of rent and after her death even the petitioner did not pay any rent despite notice of demand dated 6.1.2007 and even though the tenancy was determined, neither the rent was tendered nor the premises vacated forcing them to file the suit.
(3.) The petitioner contested the said suit admitting the relationship but stating that Shri Avinash Chandera Srivastava was never a tenant of the disputed premises and his grand father took a second wife as Smt. Vijaya Lata Srivastava and abandoned his ancestral house and the rent after the decree in suit No. 3 of 1980 was increased to Rs. 90/- per month. He denied any default and to the contrary alleged that rent has been paid up till November, 2006 but the landlord refused to accept rent from December, 2006 which was tendered through money order but again it was refused and therefore, he deposited the entire amount on the first date of hearing and therefore, was entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).;