- (1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THE present revision is against the order dated 3.3.2011 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kannauj in SCC Suit No. 1 of 2010, Bhola Nath and others Vs. Smt. Rani Devi and others. By the aforesaid order, the court below has decreed the suit on the ground of default in making the payment of rent and directed the revisionist to evict the shop in dispute and pay the entire decreetal amount. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the entire amount has been deposited on the first date of hearing. He submitted that the rent was Rs.50/- per month therefore, for 41 months a sum of Rs.250/- was deposited on the first date of hearing on 27.4.2010. Further a sum of Rs.2100/- has been deposited as interest @9%. The revisionist further deposited Rs.997/- as interest and Rs. 5,928/-as the cost of litigation. The total sum deposited was Rs.8,625/-. He submitted that even if the rent is taken @Rs.70/- per month then also the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs.9,920.50 p. A sum of Rs.8,625/- has been deposited on the first date of hearing and apart from that a sum of Rs.18,00/- was also deposited under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the period April, 2007 to March, 2010 on 5.2.2010 before filing of the suit. If the amount deposited under Section 30 of the Act is to be taken into account, there was no default of payment. The trial court has not considered the deposit of Rs.1800/- made under Section 30 of the Act, though in the pleading the said fact has been duly stated. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the impugned order. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order.
(3.) IN Form E, which is at page 93 of the revision, the revisionist has specifically stated about the deposit of the money under Section 30 of the Act and paragraph-18 of the written statement also it is stated that in a Misc. Case No. 4/70/10, Dharmendra Kumar Agnihotri Vs. Kailash Nath and others, a sum of Rs.1800/- has been deposited towards rent for the period April, 2007 to 31st of March, 2010. The said amount has not been considered by the court below. If the amount of Rs.1800/- is to be taken into account, there was no default. The Court below has not considered the pleadings of the revisionist referred herein-above about the payment of Rs.1800/- under Section 30 of the Act. Therefore, in my view, the matter requires reconsideration so far as issue no. 3 is concerned.;