SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Govind Krishna, Advocate for petitioners and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioners no. 1 and 2, claiming themselves to be a public charitable trust, and petitioner no. 3, as the Chief Trustee, have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2006 (Annexure -8 to the writ petition), passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge, Varanasi in SCC Revision No. 28 of 2005. The Revisional Court has allowed aforesaid revision and set aside Trial Court's order dated 12.09.2005 and remanded the matter to Trial Court for further proceedings. The petitioners -Trust claims to be owner and landlord of House No. A, 5/5 and 5/6 situate in Mohalla Mukeemganj, Varanasi. The house was under the tenancy of defendant, Suraj Prasad, now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs, i.e., respondents no. 1/1 to 1/10. The premises was let out to respondent -tenant before enforcement of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. The tenant stopped payment of rent from 01.04.1978. Even otherwise condition of building was dilapidated and required reconstruction. Petitioners -landlords determine tenancy and required tenant to handover vacant possession, failing which Suit No. 81 of 2000 was filed in the Court of Judge Small Cause, Varanasi. The suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 26.05.2001. The defendant -tenant filed Misc. Application No. 183 of 2001 dated 20.12.2001 under Section 17 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1887") requesting for setting aside ex parte decree and also tendered to deposit Rs. 8547/ - being decreetal amount alongwith expenses of litigation and requested for approval of his tender so that amount may be deposited. The application 6 -C for passing tender was accepted by Trial Court vide order dated 21.12.2001 and on the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., it issued notices inviting objections from plaintiffs.
(3.) THE plaintiffs filed objection stating that defendant had sought permission to deposit only decreetal amount and not the entire outstanding arrears of rent from 01.04.1978, therefore, there is no compliance of Section 17 of Act, 1887 and application deserve to be rejected.;