- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Sukh Pal Singh since deceased and survived by respondent No. 3 to 12 filed SCC Suit (Suit) No. 187 of 1976 against petitioner Om Prakash and respondents No. 13 and 14 Rudra Prasad Vajpai and Vishwanath Prasad. In the suit, it was alleged that defendants 2 and 3 were the owners landlords and Sukh Pal Singh plaintiff was their tenant and that plaintiff had sublet a portion of the tenanted accommodation to Om Prakash hence Sukh Pal Singh was landlord of Om Prakash.
(2.) RELIEF of eviction was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent and material alteration. The ground of material alteration does not survive as both the Courts below have decided the same in favour of the petitioner. One of the owners landlords Vishwanath Prasad defendant No. 3/respondent No. 14 appeared as witness in the suit. True copy of his oral statement has been annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. He supported the case of chief tenant/plaintiff Sukh Pal Singh. JSCC, Kanpur through judgment and decree dated 18-8- 1983 decreed the suit for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent. Decree was passed by Additional JSCC Kanpur Nagar. Against the said judgment and decree, petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 195 of 1983. X Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 3-11-1987, dismissed the revision hence this writ petition. There is no need to decide the question of eviction on the ground of subletting as both the plaintiff/chief tenant as well as defendant No. 3/one of the owners landlord admitted in their statement given in the year 1978 that petitioner was inducted as tenant/sub-tenant 40 years before i. e. in or about 1938. At that time no Rent Control Act was in force and subletting was not prohibited. In any case owners/main landlords have not filed the suit hence there is no question of eviction on the ground of sub-letting. Chief Tenant cannot himself seek eviction of sub- tenant on the ground that he has illegally inducted him as sub- tenant.
(3.) THE petitioner asserted that he was direct tenant of landlords owners/defendant No. 2 and 3/respondent No. 13 and 14. In respect of default, he asserted that as both Sukh Pal Singh as well as defendant No. 2 and 3 had started claiming landlordship and as he was in doubt about the said fact hence he deposited the rent under Section 30 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which is quoted below: "where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent in respect of any building the tenant may likewise deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit is made and may until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent Court or by settlement between the parties continue to deposit the rent that made subsequently become due in respect of such building. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Kailash Chand v. Mukund Lal, AIR 2002 SC 829, that in case of deposit under Section 30 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 it shall be deemed that it has been paid to the person in whose favour it is deposited or to the landlord notwithstanding the fact that under Section 20 (4) of the Act only sub-section (1) of Section 30 has been referred to. The Supreme Court has held that it appears to be only an inadvertent omission.;