Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.11.2000 whereby the Trial Court decreed suit of respondents-landlords for eviction of petitioner-tenants from the building in dispute which is a shop situated at Nehru Road, Farrukhabad and the order dated 25.11.2005 whereby petitioners' revision has also been dismissed.
(2.) The suit was filed alleging that rent of shop is Rs. 50 /- per month and tenants have committed default by not making payment of rent since 01.04.1992. The tenants disputed rate of rent after putting their appearance by filing Vakalatnama of their counsel on 17.07.1997 after service of summons on 05.05.1997. Thereafter they sought time for filing written statement which was allowed and the case was adjourned on dozens of dates, i.e., 02.09.1997, 06.10.1997, 06.11.1997, 06.01.1998, 06.02.1998, 07.03.1998, 04.04.1998, 04.05.1998, 06.07.1998, 10.08.1998, 09.09.1998, 08.10.1998, 10.11.1998, 11.12.1998, 12.01.1997, 27.02.1999, 27.03.1999, 03.05.1999, 03.07.1999, 06.08.1999, 10.09.1999, 12.10.1999, 31.10.1999 and 25.11.1999. Ultimately on 14.12.1999 the petitioners-tenants deposited Rs. 2424/- claiming itself to be a purported compliance of Section 20(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") and filed written statement on 15.12.1999. They claimed benefit of Section 20(4) that no decree of eviction should be passed against them since they have deposited entire amount of rent and other expenses before the first date of hearing.
(3.) Both the courts below have come to conclusion that though the tenants disputed rate of rent and claimed that it was only Rs. 20/- per month and not Rs. 50/- per month as claimed by respondents-landlords, but in fact it is Rs. 50/- per month. They have recorded a finding of fact that rent of shop was Rs. 50 per month. This finding has not been shown perverse or contrary to record. Having said so the courts below have also found that tenants deposited rent of shop in question on 14.12.1999 at the rate of Rs. 20 per month and not at Rs. 50 per month. Therefore, there was an apparent default on their part in compliance of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972.;