Narain Dutt Ojha, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 2, Narain Prasad Gupta is the landlord of a building which was let out to the petitioner. A suit was instituted by respondent No. 2 in the Court of Justice, Small Causes, for ejectment of the petitioner from the aforesaid building and for arrears of rent etc. on the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 37/ - that he was in arrears of rent from 1st April, 1975, that he had not paid the said arrears which were for a period not less than four months notwithstanding a notice of demand and termination of his tenancy dated 11th August, 1977 having been served upon him and consequently he was liable to be evicted from the building in question under Section 20(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The petitioner deposited in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, on 10th March, 1979, before the date of first hearing the entire amount contemplated by Section 20(4) of the Act in order to claim the benefit of the said section of being relieved against his liability for ejectment from the building in question The arrears of rent with effect from 1st April, 1975, were deposited by the petitioner at the rate of 37/ - per month as claimed by respondent No. 2. Subsequently the defendant filed his written statement on 20th February, 1980, wherein be inter alia took up the plea that the rate of rent was not Rs. 37/ - per month and that he had already paid the rent at that rate and was not in arrears of rent.
(2.) THE Judge, Small Causes, after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties held that the rate of rent was Rs. 10/ - per month only as asserted by the petitioner and not Rs. 37/ - per month as asserted by respondent No. 2. He further came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had already paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 10/ - per month and was not in arrears of rent. However, in view of the deposit made under Section 20(4) of the Act, as aforesaid he relieved the petitioner of the liability for being evicted from the building. He directed the amount so deposited by the petitioner to be paid over to respondent No. 2 calculating the rent at the rate of Rs. 10/ - per month and the balance to be refunded to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the aforesaid decree of the Judge, Small Causes, before the District Judge which was transferred to the Court of respondent No. 1. This revision was allowed by respondent No. 1, on 18th November, 1981 and the suit was decreed for ejectment also of the petitioner from the building in question. Benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act was denied to the petitioner, notwithstanding the deposit made by him as aforesaid, in view of the plea subsequently raised by him in his written statement that he was not in arrears of rent. It was held by respondent No. 1 relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mangal Sen v. Kanchhid Mal : A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1726, that in view of the aforesaid plea raised by him in his written statement the deposit made by the petitioner under Section 20(4) of the Act could not be treated to have been made "unconditionally" as contemplated by the said Section 20(4). It is this order dated 18th November, 1981, passed by respondent No. 1 which is sought to be quashed in this writ petition.
(3.) IT was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mangal Sen (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the instant case and respondent No. 1 has committed a manifest error of law in denying to the petitioner the statutory benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act which was couched in a peremptory language. For respondent No. 2 it has, on the other hand, been urged by his counsel that the facts of the present case and those of the case of Mangal Sen (supra) were, in so far as denial by the tenant of being a defaulter in payment of rent, is concerned, identical and no exception can be taken to the finding of respondent No. 1 in this behalf.;