S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings in small causes court suit no. 2 of 1977 filed in the court of Judge Small Causes Ballia. The petitioner is the tenant. Opposite parties nos. 3 to 5 are the landlords. The property in dispute is a house situate in village Rasra, district Ballia. The suit was filed on the ground that the petitioner is a defaulter as inspite of the notice of demand he did not pay the rent. The Judge Small Causes Court held that the petitioner was a defaulter and decreed the suit on 16th July 1977. Against the judgment dated 16th July 1977 a revision was filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The revision was dismissed on 18th October 1978 holding that the petitioner is a defaulter. The case of the petitioner that since he had made deposit under section 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, he is not a defaulter was refuted by the revisional court on the ground that no valid deposit was made within the meaning of section 30 of the Act and as such the petitioner cannot take the benefit of the said deposit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the deposit made by the petitioner is valid deposit under section 30 of the Act and as such the petitioner could not have been held to be a defaulter. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The revisional court has recorded a finding that the petitioner had moved an application under section 30 of the Act and deposited rent for the months of July and August 1975. This application was dismissed in default on 22nd January 1976. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application for restoration on 6th January 1977 and thereafter deposited the subsequent rent. This application for restoration was dismissed subsequently.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY the notice of demand is dated 10th September 1976. The notice was received by the petitioner on 11th September 1976. Neither any rent was sent by the petitioner after the receipt of the notice nor any payment was made to the landlord. The only question, therefore, which arises is whether the deposit which was made under section 30 of the Act was a valid deposit or not. The revisional court has taken the view that since the application under section 30 of the Act had been dismissed in default the deposit made by the petitioner could not have been taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two cases of this Court given under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, in respect of an analogous provision section 7-C. The first case relied upon by the petitioner is Changalal v. Waqf Khudawand Tala, 1972 AWR 29. In this case the question was as to whether the subsequent deposits made under section 7-G of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act could be treated as valid deposits as the formalities required under rule 91 of the Rules framed under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, had not been complied with. This Court took the view that in the case of subsequent deposits it is not necessary to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 and as such the deposits would be held valid deposits entitling the tenant to the benefit of section 7-C, sub-clause (6) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The principle laid down in this case does not apply to the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on Mohammad Ilyas v. Skri Ram, 1972 ALJ 348. A single Judge of this Court had taken the view that the procedure prescribed under section 7-C of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, does not contemplate the giving of a notice to the landlord. The landlord, however, has had a right to file an objection in regard to the deposit. Since no such procedure was prescribed if an application under section 7-C of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was dismissed the deposits would not become invalid. The principle laid down in the case of Mohammad Ilyas (supra) however, does not apply to the present case as the present case is under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 rules have been framed. Rule 21 is relevant for the purposes of this case. Rule 21 clearly provides that any person desirous of depositing rent under section 30 of the Act shall apply in Form E. The notice of the said application have to be given to all the opposite parties mentioned in the application. Subclause (4) of rule 21 of the Rules specifically provides that where a notice of deposit is returned unserved the court shall fix a date on or before which the applicant shall deposit fresh process fee and notice in Form F and if within the time so allowed or within such extended time as the Court may grant, the applicant fails to take steps as above, the application shall be rejected and the amount deposited shall be refunded to the applicant. It is, therefore, clear from sub-clause (4) of rule 21 that if an application had been dismissed for default then the amount which is deposited by the applicant has to be refunded to the applicant tenant. It cannot be treated as an amount in deposit on behalf of the landlord. In view of the specific provision the principle of law laid down in the cases under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 would not apply to a case under the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. In the instant case the application had been dismissed in default. The amount, therefore, deposited was liable to be refunded to the petitioner tenant and not to the landlord. In these circumstances it cannot be treated as payment to the landlord. The view taken by the revisional court that the deposit was not a valid deposit under section 30 of the Act and it cannot be deemed to be a valid payment to the landlord is a view in accordance with law. I do not find any manifest error of law in the judgment of the revisional court.;