- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is tenants writ petition. Landlords- respondents filed SCC suit No. 41 of 2001 against tenants for eviction on the ground of default and material alteration and for recovery of arrears of rent after serving notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent. The suit was decreed by JSCC, Bijnor on 14-1- 2003. Revision filed against the same being revision No. 6 of 2003, has also been dismissed by ADJ/special Judge, Bijnor through judgment and order dated 4-2-2004, hence this writ petition.
(2.) IT was alleged in the plaint that by virtue of family partition only plaintiffs-respondents were owners landlords of the property in dispute. According to the landlords rate of rent was Rs. 200 per month while according to the tenants petitioners it was only Rs. 45 per month. Both the Courts below have held that the rate of rent was Rs. 200 per month. Regarding benefit of deposit under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the Courts below held that as after service of notice tenants admittedly did not send any money order to the landlords hence deposit made by the tenants under Section 30 could not be of any avail to them. Question of material alteration was also decided in favour of the landlords and it was held that in July, 1998 about four feet Verandah was demolished by the defendants. Revisional Court held that as the rent under Section 30 had been deposited after termination of tenancy hence it was not a valid deposit, as after termination of tenancy petitioners did not remain tenants hence they were not entitled to make deposit under Section 30 of the Act. In my opinion to that extent revisional Court was wrong. Even after termination of tenancy if landlords refuse to accept rent, tenants who become statutory tenants are entitled to make deposit under Section 30 of the Act. However, as admittedly no money order was sent after notice of demand and termination of tenancy hence deposit under Section 30 of the Act was invalid on this ground. Apart from it no rent was deposited by the tenants on the first date of hearing in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition to avail the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. The finding of rate of rent in finding of fact and Courts below have taken into consideration relevant material on record to record the said finding. Even in the finding regarding substantial damage to the building there is no such error, which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
(3.) THE main point argued by learned counsel for the tenants petitioners is that notice of termination of tenancy on behalf of some of the landlords was not valid and similarly suit filed by some of the landlords without impleading other landlords as respondents was not maintainable. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has cited G. S. Prasad v. D. J. Dehradun and others reported in 1997 (2) ARC 535. This point was not raised before the Courts below. Even otherwise the aforesaid authority of G. S. Prasad v. D. J. Dehradun, is per incuriam, as it has not taken into consideration Supreme Court authorities on the point.;