R.B.MEHROTRA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad, dated 2nd May, 1986, decreeing Suit No. 113 of 1983 of the plaintiff respondent and the order passed by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 4th October, 1988 whereby the Eighth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, dismissed the petitioner's revision filed against the judgment of Small Causes Court, Allahabad, dated 2nd May, 1986.
(2.) THE necessary facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff-respondent filed Small Causes Suit No. 113 of 1983 against the petitioner-defendant on the ground that the petitioner-defendant has wilfully defaulted in payment of rent and has not paid rent since 1st October, 1930 till the date of filing of the suit. The suit was contended by the petitioner defendant on the ground that the claim of the plaintiff-respondent is mala fide, as the plaintiff-respondent had never been issuing receipt and the rent was being paid in cash without issuance of any receipt and the petitioner-tenant throughout had been paying rent right till January 1982, on plaintiff's refusal to accept the said rent the petitioner sent Money Order in February 1982 which the respondent landlord refused to accept. Thereafter the petitioner continued to deposit rent in the proceedings under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Therefore, the petitioner has not committed any default in payment of rent. The controversy in the suit was as to whether rent had been paid from 1st August, 1980 to January 1982 as claimed by the petitioner-tenant. Both the Courts below have considered the evidence of the parties at length and in great detail and have arrived at a clear finding that the landlord having denied receiving of rent between 1st August, 1980 to January, 1982 it was obligatory upon the tenant to have proved payment of rent by some cogent evidence and held that the tenant had utterly failed to prove payment of rent for the aforesaid period. Both the Courts below disbelieved the statement of the petitioner-tenant that he had paid rent for the aforesaid period and believed the case of the respondent-landlord evaluating the evidence on record that he did not receive rent for the disputed period.
(3.) SRI Murlidhar, Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has tried to demonstrate that the Courts below have recorded a perverse finding in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner-tenant did not pay rent till January 1982. The submission of the learned Counsel is that the finding recorded by the both Courts below are so palpably wrong that any reasonable man cannot accept the same to be correct as such these findings are liable to be interfered in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.;