- (1.) HEARD Shri S.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel contesting opposite parties no. 2 to 5. This is landlords' writ petition arising out of suit for eviction instituted by original landlord V.K. Bharti (since deceased and survived by petitioners) against the tenants opposite parties no. 2 to 5 in the form of S.C.C. Suit no. 113 of 1987 Vijay Krishna Bharti vs. Prema Devi and others. Ist Additional J.S.C.C. Lucknow decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent on 03.5.1993. Against the said decree tenants opposite parties no. 2 to 5 filed S.C.C. Revision no. 131 of 1993. A.D.J. Court no. 2 Lucknow allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 20.12.2002 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff landlord hence this writ petition.
(2.) PROPERTY in dispute is one room accommodation of about 10 feet x 10 feet. Admitted rate of rent is Rs.4/ - per month. According to the plaint allegations rent had not been paid since 01.5.1986 and notice was given on 20.9.1986 still rent was not paid. The tenant contended that as rent sent by him through money order had not been accepted by the landlord, hence, it was deposited in a case under section 30 of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972. Regarding deposit of rent under section 30 landlord asserted that he had not refused the money order, hence, deposit was invalid.
(3.) RENT from 01.5.1985 onward was sent by the tenant through money order to the landlord which according to the tenant was refused to be accepted by the landlord on 25.10.1985. Tenant again sent the rent through money order on 10.12.1985 which according to the tenant was again refused by the landlord on 17.12.1985. Thereafter, it was deposited in miscellaneous case no. 1 of 1986 before Munsif under section 30. Tenant further pleaded that he again sent the rent for 11 months (total Rs. 44/ -) through money order which was also refused by the landlord. The Trial Court under issue no. 2 discussed the question of default. Tenant had filed the receipts of money orders which only contained the name of the landlord and name of the city. Trial court held that as complete address was not given thereupon, hence, it could not be said that through the said money orders rent was sent to the landlord on correct address. In this regard Revisional Court held that in the receipts normally full address was not mentioned by postal authorities. The Revisional Court further held that landlord had himself filed the receipt through which registered notice was sent and in that receipt also only the name of the tenant and of the city was mentioned. On the coupon of the money order word 'refused' was written. Trial Court held that it was not proved that who wrote the word 'refused'. Obviously such endorsement is to be made by the Postman and none else. Trial Court further mentioned that no evidence was led by the tenant to show that he made any effort to pay the rent to the landlord directly hand to hand. There is no such requirement that in order to validate the deposit under section 30 of the Act tenant must first show that he made efforts to pay the rent hand to hand to the landlord which he refused. Before making deposit under section 30 of the Act twice money orders had been sent. There is always a presumption that money order sent to a person is tendered to him. There is also presumption of correctness regarding endorsement of refusal either on the money order or on the registered letter by the Postman. Trial court itself mentioned that on paper no. 37 Ga money order coupon word refused was written in English. However, it mentioned that DW -1 did not explain the same. Trial Court further mentioned that DW -1 further mentioned that he couldnot say that on paper no. Ga -22 and Ga -23 who wrote the word 'refused'. There was no question of explanation. Word "refused" can be written only and only by the Postman. Accordingly, in my opinion the Revisional Court rightly reversed the finding of the Trial Court that deposit under section 30 of the Act was not valid as money order was not refused and as there was no evidence that prior to sending money order efforts were made to pay the rent hand to hand. The finding of the Trial Court was patently erroneous in law and rightly set -aside by the Revisional Court.;