S.P.Srivastava - (1.) FEELING aggrieved by the decree of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation In respect of the accommodation in dispute, which was under the tenancy of the petitioner, passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, which was affirmed in revision filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, he has approached this Court for redress and has sought for the quashing of the impugned orders dated 14-1-1988, passed by the trial court as well as the order dated 1-11-1989 passed by the revisional Court where under the revision filed by the petitioner tenant was dismissed.
(2.) THE respondent landlord had filed a suit giving rise to the present writ petition on the assertions that the tenant was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 20 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (herein after referred to as 'Act') and inspite of the service of the notice dated 20-1-1979, terminating the tenancy and requiring the defendant to pay the arrears of rent, which was alleged to be due since 1-12-1976, which notice was duly served on 29-1-1979, the defendant has neither tendered or paid the rent nor had vacated the premises in dispute. THE aforesaid suit was contested by the defendant asserting that no rent was due as claimed as the same was being paid under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. vide Misc. Case No. 347 of 1978, which was still pending and that neither notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on the defendant nor he had ever refused to accept it and It was further asserted that combined notice under Section 20 (2) (a) and 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was illegal, void and bad in law. Initially the trial court had decided the suit vide the judgment and order dated 8-9-1986, where under while decreeing the suit for the recovery of Rs. 513/-as rent for the period 1-12-1976 to 28-2-1979 as claimed in the plaint, the suit was dismissed so far as the other reliefs claimed thereunder were concerned, as the trial court was of the view that the combined notice could not: be deemed to have been served simply on the strength of the endorsement of 'refusal' endorse by the postman on the registered envelop containing the notice in as much as the postman had not noted his beat number, while miking the endorsement of refusal. The decree passed by the trial court was challenged in revision by the plaintiff as well as the defendant tenant. The defendant felt aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial court for the recovery of the arrears of rent, which were held to be due. The plaintiff felt aggrieved by the portion of the decree passed by the trial court, where under the relief of the ejectment of the defendant from the premises in dispute had been refused. Both these revisions were heard and disposed of by the revisional court Vide the judgment and order dated 12-11-11987, where under while dismissing the" revision filed by the defendant tenant and upholding the decree passed by the trial court regarding the recovery of the arrears of rent for the period 1-12-1976 to 28-2-1979, the other revision filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial court for deciding the Issues No. 2, 3 and 4 afresh in accordance with the law In the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. It may be noticed that the issue No. 1, the finding whereof had been affirmed was as to whether the defendant was in arrears of rent, since 1-12-1976 as alleged in the plaint. The decision of the trial court on the aforesaid issue attained finality with the dismissal of the revision filed by the defendant tenant to which a reference has already been made above as the said revisional order was never challenged by the petitioner tenant.
(3.) AFTER remand, the trial court proceeded to decide the issues No. 2, 3 and 4, which related to the questions regarding the validity of the notice and whether the defendant tenant could be deemed to be a defaulter as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act and whether in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of eviction against the defendant as claimed. The trial court after carefully considering the evidence and the materials on the record held that the notice in question had been duty served by 'refusal'. The trial court believed the statement of the postman, who had tendered the notice in question to the defendant and had made the endorsement of 'refusal' on the registered envelop The trial court further found that the deposits made by the defendant in the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act, were invalid deposits and consequently the tenant could not derive any advantage out of the same in order to save himself from becoming a 'defaulter' as contemplated under Section 20 of the said Act. Cons quently the trial court decreed the suit for the petitioner's ejectment from the premises in dispute and for the recovery of damages for use and occupation pendentelite and future as claimed.;