Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal. It arises out of original suit No. 316 of 1963 for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment of the defendant from house No. E -5/115 situate in Mohalla Bahadurpur, Badaun as described at the foot of the plaint. The suit was filed on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff has purchased the house in dispute from Custodian Department through a sale certificate dated 27 February, 1962 (Ex. 5). It was registered on 4.9.1962 vide Ex. 1 and the plaintiff was authorized to recover the rent from the tenant -defendant w.e.f. 1st of November, 1960. The tenancy of the defendant -respondent was terminated by a notice dated 30th July, 1963 which was served on him on 31st July, 1963. The defendant failed to pay the arrears of rent for the period 1st of November, 1960 till the date of notice within a period of one month from the service of the notice and the tenancy of the defendant stood terminated in accordance with section 3(1)(a) of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter to referred as the Act).
(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendant by denying the title of the plaintiff on the allegation that the property in question was owned by several persons and did not vest in the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and the suit is bad for non -joinder of them. The notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is not valid and the defendant has not committed default within the meaning of section 3(1)(a) of the Act as he has already deposited the rent under section 7 -C of the Act. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court for recovery of Rs. 102/ - as arrears of rent from 1st of November, 1962, the mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 3 per month from 1.9.1963 to the date of delivery of the possession and ejectment of the defendant from the premises in dispute by the judgment and decree dated 26th October, 1964 passed by the Trial Court. The said decree was affirmed in Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1964 by the Civil Judge in its earlier judgment dated 19th May, 1965. Both the Courts below found that the sale certificate dated 27.2.1962 Ex. 5 clearly establishes that the house was sold to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 3,600/ -. The sale certificate was registered on 4.9.1962 vide Ex. 1. The reliance was placed by the defendant on the memorandum issued by the office of the Managing Officer of the Evacuee Property showing name of Smt. Leela Bai is of no consequence in the face of the sale certificate which is a document of title. The suit is not bad for non -joinder of the necessary party as the so -called original owners of the property did not come forward to put their claim with respect to the disputed house. The plaintiff became the exclusive owner and landlord of the house in question. The deposit made by the defendant under section 7C of the Act is of no avail to him as it was made in the name of Smt. Leela Bai who was not his landlord and the defendant was permitted by the Munsif to make deposit under section 7C of the Act at his own risk.
(3.) THE second appeal No. 2717 of 1965 was filed in this Court by the defendant against the aforesaid judgment of the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was allowed by the judgment dated 27th March, 1973 and the matter was remanded back to the lower Appellate Court for rehearing and disposal according to the law keeping in view the observations made in the body of the judgment. This Court took the view that from Ex. A -6 it is apparent that the defendant took steps to deposit the rent in the Court under section 7C, though in the name of Smt. Leela Bai. Once rent is paid in the Court under section 7C of the Act as was done in this case, it must be presumed that the rent was deposited in the Court for being paid to the landlord. Ultimately, it was found that the defendant appears to have been in doubt as to who was actual landlord and under the circumstances if he started depositing the rent only in the name of one of them; it could not be held that the rent was not duly deposited for being paid to the actual landlord under section 7C of the Act. The matter was remanded for reconsideration to find out as to whether the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than three months on the date of notice and whether after receiving notice he failed to deposit the arrears, if any, within a period of one month mentioned in the notice. The relevant para is quoted below : In view of what has been discussed, it would be necessary to find out keeping in view the evidence on the record as to whether it could be said that the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than three months on the date the notice was served on him and whether after receiving the notice he failed to deposit the arrears, if any, within the period of one month mentioned in the notice. These will be findings of fact which should be gone into by the lower Court.;