S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of suit (S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 1991) filed by landlord-respondent against him for ejectment from the tenanted accommodation and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default and material alteration. The suit was decreed and revision of the tenant was dismissed against which tenant-petitioner filed writ petition No. 38691 of 1996. The said writ petition was allowed on 3-12-1996 and the matter was remanded to J.S.C.C. to decide as to whether deposits made by the tenant under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were validly made or not and whether constructions and alterations made by tenant disfigured the building and diminished its value and utility. After remand J.S.C.C., Bijnor again decreed the suit on 2-4-1997. Revision filed against the same being Revision No. 25 of 1997 has also been dismissed on 15- 10-1998 by Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Bijnor hence this writ petition.
(2.) ACCORDING to the plaint rate of rent is Rs. 50/- per month and apart from that tenant is also liable to pay house tax and water tax at the rate of 17.5% per annum. Regarding rate of rent there is no dispute. In the plaint it was stated that rent had not been paid since May, 1978 and that in spite of notice of termination of tenancy and demanding the rent dated 18-7-1991 served upon the tenant on 19-7-1991 the same was not paid to the landlord within a month from the date of receipt of notice. The tenant sent the rent through money order dated 23-8-1991, which was refused by the landlord on the ground that it was sent after one month from the date of receipt of notice. The tenant in order to bring the money order of arrears of rent sent by him within the period of one month of receipt of notice tried to stretch and contract both the ends of the same at the belated stage of the case. First the tenant tried to assert that he received the notice on 24-7-1991 and not 19-7-1991. Thereafter, tenant sought to adduce some money order coupon dated 7-8-1991 through additional evidence in revision after remand by the High Court which was rejected by the revisional Court. In my opinion the Courts below have rightly held that the notice was served on 19-7-1991 and not 24-7-1991 and money order was sent by the tenant on 23-8-1991 and not 7-8-1991. There is, therefore, no error in the finding recorded by the Courts below that the arrears of rent were sent through money order by the tenant to the landlord after one month from the date of receipt of notice. The tenant deposited rent from May, 1978 till October, 1979 in SCC Suit No. 123 of 1978, which had earlier been filed by the landlord. It is also admitted by the landlord and conceded by learned counsel for the landlord that the money order for Rs. 771.25 sent by the tenant was accepted by the landlord on 7-4-1984. This included rent from January to March, 1984. The rest of the amount was probably sent towards arrears of taxes. The landlord in his notice demanded the rent with effect from May, 1978. The landlord included even the rent deposited in earlier suit (SCC Suit No. 123 of 1978) and the amount, which had been received by him through money order on 7-4-1984 in the said notice. However, in view of Full Bench authority, reported in 2000(1) All Rent Cas 653, wrong demand of rent in notice does not render the notice invalid.
(3.) THE tenant deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act thrice. The first case was registered as Misc. Case No. 43 of 1980, second as Misc. Case No. 8 of 1985 and the third as Misc. Case No. 66 of 1991. It is the deposit under the third case which was mainly challenged by the landlord as being invalid. In fact J.S.C.C. after remand from the High Court considered only the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act in the third case and held the same to be invalid. Regarding deposits under the first two misc. cases no discussion was made by the trial Court in its judgment. The revisional Court has held the deposits under the first two misc. cases also to be invalid.;