- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Respondent No. 3, Chhotey Lal since deceased and survived by legal representatives filed SCC Suit No. 358 of 1972 against tenant-petitioner for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent before JSCC, Agra. The suit was decreed on 31-5-1984. Tenant-petitioner filed SCC Revision (Civil Revision) No. 63 of 1984 against the said judgment and decree which was dismissed on 16-2-1987 by IIIrd ADJ Agra hence this writ petition.
(2.) THE first point involved in this writ petition is as to whether one week's notice under Section 20 (2) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is valid or not. THE said sub-section is quoted below: "that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not, less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand. " Notice was given on 28-8-1971, copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. In the said notice tenant was called upon to pay off the entire arrears of rent within a week from the date of receipt of the notice. In the last paragraph of the notice it was mentioned that the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated through the said notice and he was called upon to deliver actual physical and vacant possession of the tenanted portion immediately on the expiry of thirty days, from the date of receipt thereof. The suit was filed on 29-4-1972 i. e. after about eight months of the notice. It has been held in Smt. Baddey v. Smt. Mahadevi, 1954 AWR 165 (DB), that a notice demanding the arrears of rent within a period less than one month (fifteen days in the said case) is not invalid, however, suit cannot be filed before expiry of one month from the date of receipt of notice by the tenant. According to the said authority even if lesser time has been granted for clearing the arrears of rent in the notice still tenant is entitled and required to clear the rent dues within a month from the date of receipt of the notice. In the suit the tenant had taken the defence that he had deposited the entire rent under Section 7-c of old U. P. Rent Control Act (U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947 ). The Courts below held that the tenant failed to show that the landlord had refused to accept the rent hence deposit of rent under Section 7-c of old U. P. Rent Control Act was not valid. The Courts below also held that no money order coupon was filed by the tenant to show that he had sent the rent to the landlord through money order which was refused by him before making the deposit under Section 7-c of the old Act. Both the parties before the trial Court had stated through their learned Counsel that they did not intend to adduce any oral evidence and suit could be decided only on the basis of documentary evidence.
(3.) THE version of the tenant that he spent Rs. 43. 06 in repairs and he was entitled to adjust the same in the rent was also disbelieved by both the Courts below. THE tenant had sent money order of only Rs. 5/- after adjusting the aforesaid amount of Rs. 53. 06. THE said money order was rightly refused by the landlord. The suit was filed by Chooraman and Choteylal. During pendency of suit Chooraman died however, his heirs were not substituted. Learned Counsel for tenant-petitioner has also argued that suit by one of the co-landlords is not maintainable hence suit could not be decreed without substitution of legal representatives of Chooraman. The Supreme Court in M/s. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. B. Agarwal, reported in 2004 (1) JCLR 392 (SC) : AIR 2004 SC 1321, has held that suit for eviction can be filed by one of the landlords also.;