- (1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The petitioner is the tenant of opposite parties 3 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as landlords) in respect of premises No. 1779 (first floor) Gwynne Road, Lucknow. It appears that a notice dated 8-9-1980 was sent by the landlords to the petitioner demanding arrears of rent from him. The tenancy of the petitioner was also terminated by the said notice which was served upon the petitioner on 10-9-1980. It appears that in compliance of the demand made in the said notice, the petitioner sent a cheque for Rs. 2808/- being the rent for the period from 1-4-1980 to 30-9-1980 on 25-9-1980 which was refused. This was followed by rent for the month of October, 1980 which was sent by Money Order on 7-10-1980 but it was also refused. On the expiry of the period of notice, a suit for the eviction of the petitioner was filed by the landlords in the Court of the District Judge, Lucknow on 14-10-1980 which was registered as SC. Suit No. 58 of 1980. It is still pending, having in the meantime been transferred to the Court of Vth Addl. District Judge, Lucknow.
(3.) On 4-10-1980 petitioner filed an application in the Court of Munsif North, Lucknow, for permission to deposit the rent in Court under S. 30(1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings 'Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 (for short, Act) on the ground that the rent when tendered to the landlords through the cheque and the Money Order was refused by them. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 258 of 1980 against which the landlords filed objections in which it was, inter alia, pleaded that a regular suit for eviction of the petitioner had already been filed on the ground of default and, therefore, there was no occasion to allow the petitioner to deposit the rent in Court particularly as his tenancy had been terminated by notice dated 8-9-1980 and he was no longer a tenant. The learned Munsif by his order dated 19-4-1982 rejected the application on the ground that a suit for eviction had already been filed against the petitioner and it was not possible to allow the petitioner to deposit the rent under S. 30 of the Act.;