- (1.) A. B. Srivasiava, J. In this petition, which is pending admission since 1987, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, hence, it is being finally disposed of in accordance with Rules of Court after having learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner-tenants have by means of this petition, sought quash ing of a judgment and order dated 2-12-1986 of the J. S. C. C. , Azamgarh, decreeing the suit of the landlord-respondent No. 1 for ejectment and arrears of rent, and order dated 15-10-1987 of the 1st Additional District Judge, confirming the same in revision. It appears the petitioners' predecessor-in-title Raja Ram, was a tenant of 3 rooms and a Chabutara on Rs. 40 per month. In the year 1969 the landlord demolished two of the rooms and constructed a Katra and triad to demolish the 3rd room which was a shop and the Chabutara where upon a civil suit was filed by late Raja Ram, the tenant, for prohibitory and mandatory injunction, and possession. The said suit was decreed. In second appeal, however, the judgment was modified, the suit for re-construction of the demolished portion was set aside, and. vas maintained in respect of rest of the portion. Subsequently, the landlord filed a S. C. C. suit in the court of the Judge Small Causes against the petitioners, alleging that rent was in arrears from 1-4-1969, which was not paid despite notice of demand and termination served on 25-3-1982. The defendants sent rent Rs. 11 which being less than the rent payable, was refused by the landlord. The suit was for ejectment, arrears of rent damages.
(3.) THE suit was contested by the petitioner with allegation that after the demolition of the two inner rooms, he remained a tenant only of the Shop No. 25-A, and has been paying rent @ Rs. 11 per month for the same, which was the rate for the other similar adjoining shops. THE petitioners are not defaulters having deposited the rent @ Rs. 11 per month under Section 30 of Act 13 of 1972 on account of refusal of the landlord, the notice is invalid. The learned J. S. C. C. held that the rate of rent is Rs. 40 per month and not Rs. 11 per month, as there is no provision in Act 13 of 1972 and the claim of the petitioners for reduction of rent on account of demolition of the two rooms is not sustainable under Act 13 of 1972, the petitioners have also committed default, and accordingly decreed the suit. The revisional court affirmed the same observing that it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact.;