Sudhir Narain - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Judge. Small Causes Court. Deoria, decreeing the suit against the petitioner and the judgment dated 16-12-87, passed by District Judge, Deoria, affirming the judgment in revision.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioner was a tenant of shop situate at Arjun Road, Deoria. Respondent no. 3 was the landlord who died during the pendency of this writ petition, He filed S.C.C. suit no. 44 of 19.80 for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner was in arrears of rent since April, 1980. A composite notice demanding arrears of rent, house tax and water tax and terminating the tenancy was sent to him on 29th August, 1980. The notice was refused by the petitioner. He did not pay the arrears of rent, hence he was liable for payment of the arrears of rent, house tax and water tax, damages for occupation and liable for eviction. The suit was contested by the petitioner on various grounds. He alleged that he personally tendered the rent to the landlord respondent no. 3 but he refused to accept the same. He thereafter sent the money order on 29th May 1980 but respondent no. 3 refused to receive the money order on 7th June 1980 and thereafter he moved an application under section 30 (1) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent, and Eviction) Act 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and deposited the rent for April and May 1990. Further, he went on depositing the amount in the said proceedings for the months of June, July, August, September, October and November 1990. He did not refuse to accept any notice sent by the landlord. He was not liable to pay house tax and water tax to the plaintiff. The judge, Small Causes Court had struck of the defence of the petitioner under Order XV, Rule 5 CPC but the said order was later on set aside. The parties led evidence in the case. The Judge, Small Causes Court recorded finding that the notice sent by the landlord dated 29-8-80 was served upon the petitioner. Respondent no. 3 did not refuse to accept any amount alleged to have been sent by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was not justified in depositing the amount under section 30 of the Act. He did not pay the amount within one month from the date of service of the notice and thereby he committed default in payment of arrears of rent and was liable for ejectment. It was further held that the petitioner was liable to pay house tax and water tax as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision against the said order. The revisional court affirmed all the findings of the Judge, Small Causes Court but as far house tax and water tax were concerned, respondent no. 1 held that the landlord failed to prove the actual amount of house tax and water tax which the tenant was liable to pay to the Municipal Authority and, therefore, he was not entitled to any decree for payment of such amount. The petitioner aggrieved against these judgments filed a writ petition no. 1267 of 1988. A learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition. The finding of the courts below that the landlord had not refused to accept the money order was reserved. It was found that from the material evidence on the record that the landlord had refused to accept the money order and the petitioner was justified in depositing the amount under section 30 (1) of the Act and taking into consideration the deposit already made by the petitioner, he was not in arrears of rent for four months on the date of the notice. He did not thereby commit any default in payment of arrears of rent as contemplated under section 20 (2) (a) of the Act. Respondent No. 3 filed Special Leave Petition no. 2650 of 1990 which was later on numbered as Special Appeal no. 3806 of 1990 Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, vide order dated August 3, 1990, took the view that the High Court was not justified in reversing the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The case was remitted to the High Court to decide other grounds which were urged on behalf of the respondent (petitioner in the present case.) This writ petition was again posted for hearing
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged two points : 1. The notice dated 29th August 1990 was invalid ; and 2. The finding of the courts below that the respondent no. 3 had not refused to accept the money order sent by the petitioner on 29th May 1990 was erroneous.;