- (1.) An ex parte decree for ejectment came to be passed against the petitioner-tenant on 14-3-84 by the trial Court. On 3-7-84 the petitioner filed an application under O. 9, R. 13, C. P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 14-3-84. The application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree has been rejected by the Court below. The petitioner challenges the said order through the medium of this writ petition.
(2.) It is averred by respondent No. 3 that the arrears of rent were claimed in the suit from 1-4-83 to 15-9-83 at the rate of Rs. 32/per month. The property seems to have been purchased by the respondent No. 3 on 30-3-83 Total rent from the date it fell due to the date of institution of the application under O. 9, R. 13, C.P.C. comes to Rs.484.00. The petitioner is said to have deposited Rs. 271.00-only. The petitioner is said to have deposited Rs. 1,228.00 under S.30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1972. The said proceedings are pending between the erstwhile owner of the property and the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 is not party to those proceedings.
(3.) Respondent No. 3 supported the judgment of the Court below on the ground that the petitioner had deposited only Rs. 271.00- on account of decretal amount, out of Rs.484.00 which was outstanding against him up to 3-7-84 when the application under 0.9, R. 13, C.P.C. was filed by him. The deposit is said to be not valid. Therefore, in terms of S. 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act, the Court below was perfectly right in dismissing the application of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte decree. It is further stated that any deposit made by the petitioner in different proceeding in the name of different persons cannot be said to be valid deposit by the petitioner so as to get the benefit of S. 17 of the Small Cause Courts Act. It is averred that rent was payable to respondent No. 3. Therefore, deposit could be made in his name after satisfying the conditions of S. 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972. There was no refusal on the part of respondent No. 3 to accept the rent which was tendered to him. Therefore, S. 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972 could not come into play against respondent No. 3. That being so the theory of deposit set up by the petitioner is of no consequence because the petitioner has not deposited any amount in the name of respondent No. 3 and has not tendered any amount to him.;