KRISHNA MURARI, J. - (1.) THESE are two connected writ petitions between the same parties based on same set of facts raising common question of law, hence, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the dispute are as under : Respondent -landlord filed two SCC suit numbered as 4 and 5 of 2010 for recvoery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the allegation that the tenant - petitiner was in arrears of rent and tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 22 -5 -2010, which was duly served on 24 -5 -2010. The two suits were in respect of two shops situated in Mohall Khushimal district Pilibhit and were in the tenancy of the petitioner. The suits were contested by the petitioner by filing written statement alleging that the land -respondent was not deliberately accepting the rent. It was further stated that rent for the period 01 -04 -2008 to 31 -07 -2008 was tendered to the landlord by means of a money order dated 22 - 08 -2008 but it was refused and thereafter, the rent of the two shops was deposited in misc. case nos. 142 of 2008 and 143 of 2008. It was also alleged that on receipt of notice the entire rent for the period 01 -04 -2008 onwards amounting to Rs.1645/ - for one shop and Rs. 1495/ - for another shop was tendered by money order dated 14 -06 -2010, which was again refused. The tenant -petitioner also claimed benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') alleging that the alleged entire arrears including the other amount contemplated have been deposited on 23 - 9 -2010.
(3.) THE Judge, Small Causes Court vide two separate judgment and decree dated 23 -9 -2012 dismissed both the suits. The respondent -landlord challenged the judgments passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court by filing two revisions, which were numbered as SCC Revision No. 7 of 2012 and 8 of 2012. Revisional Court vide separate judgment dated 28 -01 -2013 allowed the revision and set aside the judgment of the Small causes Court and decreed the suit and directed ejectment of the tenant -petitioner. Aggrived by the said order, two writ petitions have been filed. Judge, Small Causes Court recorded a finding that rent was tendered to the respondent -landlord by money order dated 14 -6 -2010 and again on 28 -6 - 2010, as such, there was no default in payment of rent and the notice was invalid and consequently, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Small Causes Court further held that there was no occasion to consider the question whether tenant was entitled to any benefit under Section 20(4) of the Act as the said issue did not arise inasmuch qw the tenant was not in any arrears. The revisional court, however, reversed the finding of the Small Causes Court on the ground that the cost imposed upon the tenant -petitioner before filing the written statement was not included in the deposit made on the first date of hearing and thus the he was a defaulter and not entitled to be extended the benefit under Section 20(4) of the Act. The finding of the Small Causes Court that since the rent tendered by money order, even though it was returned back, was a valid tender and the tenant was not in arrears, was also set aside by the revisional court holding that since the receipts of money orders produced in evidence did not bear the complete address of the tenant and it only recorded ''Rs.1495 Rajendra Prasad Pilibhit'' and in the absence of the complete address, it cannot be presumed that it was sent on the correct address of the landlord and was not a valid tender.;