- (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Suit no. 11 of 1979 was filed by the father of respondent against the petitioner in the court of Judge, Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (JD), J.P. Nagar for recovery of unpaid rent for the period August 1977 to October, 1988 and eviction of the petitioner from the accommodation in dispute. Tenancy of the petitioner was also terminated by notice.
(2.) THE tenant petitioner contested the suit and filed written statement admitting the tenancy at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month but pleaded that all the taxes were included in the rent. He also admitted the rent due but denied having received any notice or to have refused any notice or to have manipulated endorsement with the help of the post man. He further stated that the entire rent, interest, costsof the suit and the counsel fee amounting to Rs. 640/- have been deposited in the court on 5.2.1981 and he is entitled to th benefit of sub section (4) of section 20 of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972. After the witnesses were examined, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff respondent vide judgment and order dated 24.1.1985 holding that notice had been served upon the defendant and rent had not been deposited by him on the first date of hearing, as such the tenant is liable to be evicted.
(3.) THE aforesaid judgment and order dated 24.1.1985 was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 49 of 1985. The revisional court i.e. IInd Additional District Judge, Moradabad by judgment and order dated 4.7.1986, allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 24.1.1985 and remanded the case for reconsideration holding that two points require determination in this case, firstly as to whether any valid notice had been served upon the tenant and secondly whether the rent due alongwith interest was deposited in court under section 20(4) on first date or not.;