Sushil Harkauli, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for both sides. In the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, on the first date of hearing the petitioner -tenant, which is a department of Government of India, had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,388 under section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. This fact has been mentioned in the written statement, which was also filed promptly on the first date mentioned in the summons. The suit for ejectment has been decreed on the ground that the amount due was Rs. 5,521.75 paise.
(2.) IT has also come on record that the petitioners were tenant in the premises since long before the death of the original landlord. The petitioners continued to pay rent to the son of the deceased landlord. The present landlord claims on the strength of a notarized Will in his favour by the former landlord and on that basis he demanded rent. Initially, the Government department required the present landlord to furnish proof before payment, on the meantime, because the suit was instituted, therefore, money was deposited in the Court below. Considering the fact that the tenant is a Government department, I am of the opinion that considering the amount found to be due (Rs. 5,521) and the amount deposited (Rs. 5,388), substantial compliance of the requirement of deposit has been done and the small amount of shortage in the deposit, appears to be by way of calculation mistake, for which punishment is not to throw out the tenant.
(3.) SO far as water tax is concerned, in the notice of demand rate of water tax was not mentioned. Clause (I) of the notice is important for that purpose. Because the Courts below have not applied their mind to these aspects, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the Revisional Court dated 2nd May, 2001 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Revisional Court for reconsideration in accordance with law. Observations made above on merits of issues will not be treated to be binding on the Revisional Court.;