- (1.) HEARD Sri M. A. Khan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan for the petitioner and Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for contesting respondent in both the writ petitions, which have been filed by the landlord.
(2.) FIRST writ petition arises out of S.C.C. Suit No.29 of 1985 filed by landlord petitioner against tenant respondent No.3, Badri Vishal (Ram Nath Vs. Badri Vishal). J.S.C.C./ Civil Judge Baharaich through order dated 23.03.1987 rejected the application of the landlord for striking off the defence of the tenant under Order XV Rule 5, C.P.C. Revision field against the same in the form of S.C.C. Revision No.54 of 987 was dismissed by I A.D.J., Baharaich on 23.09.1989, hence first writ petition. As far as second writ petition between same parties is concerned, the same has also been filed by the landlord which arises out of proceedings under Section 30 of U.P. Act N.13 of 1972 initiated by the tenant Badri Vishal (respondent No.2 in the second writ petition). The application was registered as Misc. Case No.177/70/85, Badri Vishal Vs. Ram Nath. Munsif, Baharaich rejected the application and permitted the tenant to withdraw the deposited amount. In one sentence the reason for rejection of the application was given, which was to the effect that "O.P. did not refuse to receive the rent". Against the said order, tenant Badri Vishal filed Civil Revision No.91 of 1997. First A.D.J. Baraich allowed the revision through order dated 23.09.1989. (The revision had been filed under Section 115, C.P.C.) The said order has been challenged through second writ petition.
(3.) THE Supreme Court in Maiku Vs. Vilayat Hussain, AIR 1986 SC 1645 has held that whether the deposit under Section 30 of the Act (or Section 7 -C of the of the old Rent Control Act) is valid or not on the ground that landlord had refused to accept the rent or not is to be seen in the suit which is subsequently filed and not in the application under Section 30 of the act.;