Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Mr Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief on behalf of Mr. M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Vibhu Rai, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Anoop Trivedi for the respondents.
(2.) Mr Pankaj Agarwal contended that there was no default in payment of rent and, therefore, no violation of the provisions contained in Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act of 1972 (in short, the Act), for the reason that rent was tendered to respondent-landlord by money order, but he refused to receive the same. As such, the question whether the petitioner ought to have been given any benefit under section 20(4) of Act does not arise because the very ground for eviction of petitioner from the accommodation in question was not available to the landlord. He further contended that the amount of notice charges sought by the respondent-landlord were highly excessive and the same was held so by the trial court; but, without considering that finding, the revisional court has held that since notice expenses, as demanded by landlord from the tenant was not paid, therefore, benefit of section 20(4) cannot be given even though the entire amount, according to the tenant, was deposited before the first date of hearing before the trial court.
(3.) Learned counsel for respondent could not contract the first argument advanced by Sri Pankaj Agarwal. However, as regards the second aspect of the argument, he submitted that since it was apparent that the petitioner had not deposited notice charges before the first date of hearing, he was not entitled to seek any protection under section 20(4) of the Act.;