- (1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. This is a tenant's petition arising out of proceeding under Section 20 of the Act 13 of 1972 'hereinafter referred as the Act'. The petitioner has sought quashing of an order dated 7-8-1990 of the J. S. C. C. Varanasi whereby he decreed the suit of the landlord respondent No. 3 for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioners and an order dated 14-12-1993 of the Additional District Judge confirming the same in revision.
(2.) THE suit was filed by the respondent No. 3 'hereinafter referred as the respondent' alleging that she is landlord of house No. CK 63/146, Mohalla Chhoti Piyari, district Varanasi. Mahadeo father of the petitioners was a tenant in two rooms of the same on Rs. 14 per month rent. THE rent as and when paid by the tenant was endorsed on the Sarkhat Kirayadari which remained in the possession of the tenant. THE tenant fell in arrears of the rent from January 1977 w hereupon a notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 1-11-1978 was served on him but he failed to comply hence the suit. Mahadeo having died pendents lite, the petitioners were impleaded. The tenant contested the suit and pleaded that he has paid rent upto May 1977 but when the respondent did not issue receipt he sent three month's rent from June to August 1977 by money order which was refused and rent from June to October 1977 was deposited under Section 30 of the Act. The learned JSCC held that the payment of rent upto May, 1976 has not been proved. The deposit under Section 30 of the Act, is not proved to have been made prior to the filing of the suit. Consequently, he was a defaulter, the notice served was valid, full deposit on the first date of hearing 9-5-1978 having not been made, the petitioners were not entitled to benefit of Sec tion 20 (4 ). He accordingly, decreed the suit. The learned revisional court confirmed the said finding and order. In this petition affidavit having been exchanged between the parties, it is being finally disposed of in accordance with rules of court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) AS far as the question of default is concerned, the finding recorded by the learned JSCC is a finding of fact, based on consideration of entire relevant material on record. In coming to his conclusions, he took into account the evidence led by the parties and the permissible inferences, the same has been validly affirmed by the revisional court, and in this proceed ings there is no reason or ground to differ, or interfere, with the same. The main question canvassed in this writ petition however is, regarding benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act to the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that they having deposited the amount admitted to be due with interest, counsel's fee and cost on the first date of hearing, are entitled to be relieved of ejectment, the minor discrepancy of Rs. 7 or so, should have been ignored and the proviso to Section 20 (4) is not attracted. The contention of the other side however is that the amount deposited was short, the date of hearing was 9-5-1978, whereas the amount was deposited on 3-10-1978 and the wife of the tenant having acquired residential house, the proviso to Section 20 (4) was applicable.;