- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Subject-matter of impugnment in this petition is the order dated 6-7-1987 passed by the District Judge, Moradabad in Revision No. 85 of 1986 preferred against the order dated 7-2-1986 made in the proceeding instituted in the Court of Munsif Amroha (Moradabad) under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972.
(2.) THE facts draped in brevity are that the opposite party, namely, Gulzar Ahmad claiming himself to be a tenant of the shop in question of which the petitioner was the owner to the extent of 1/4th share, filed an application under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, thereby seeking permission to deposit rent in Court in respect of 1/4th share of the property in question. THE landlord upon being served, entered appearance and filed objection. In the ultimate analysis, the application filed under Section 30 (1) of the Act, 1972 came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the order, the opposite party No. 2 preferred a revision against the said order. THE revision culminated is being allowed and the order passed by the learned Munsif in Misc. Case No. 66 of 1985 was set aside and the rent was ordered to be deposited in Court under Section 30 (1) of the U. P Act XIII of 1972. Notwithstanding service of notice, there is no appearance for the opposite party 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The main brunt of the argument canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no revision lay against the order under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 and that the order passed by the learned Munsif had been rendered absolute. In the light of the argument made across the bar, the short question that begs consideration and determination is whether the revision could be entertained as against the order passed by the learned Munsif in the proceeding under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972? It brooks no dispute that under the provisions of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972, there is no provision for appeal or revision to be preferred against the order passed by the Munsif under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972. For ready reference, Section 30 (1) is excerpted below : "30. Deposit of rent in Court in certain circumstances.- (1) If any person claiming to be a tenant of a building tenders any amount as rent in respect of the building to its alleged landlord and the alleged landlord refuses to accept the same then the former may deposit such amount in the prescribed manner and continue to deposit any rent which he alleges to be due for any subsequent period in respect of such building until the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willigness to accept it. "
(3.) I have also traversed upon the provisions of Section 115 CPC, which, in my considered view is not intended for application to the orders of Munsif passed in exercise of powers under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972. On this count also, the revision against the order under Section 30 of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 is not maintainable. Having due regard to the provisions of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 and after considering the arguments advanced across the bar, I am of the considered view that no revision lay against the order passed by the Munsif under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 and the order passed by the learned Munsif in Misc. Case No. 66 of 1985 was absolute. As a result of foregoing discussions, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6-7-1987 is quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. Petition allowed. .;