S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is landlord's writ petition. Property in dispute is a shop. Respondent No. 3 Usman Ghani is the tenant. Rate of rent is Rs. 40/- per month. Landlord-petitioner filed suit for eviction against tenant-respondent before JSCC, Amroha being SCC Suit No. 49 of 1979. In the plaint it was stated that shop in dispute having been constructed in the year 1975, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. In the alternative it was pleaded that even if the aforesaid Act applied to the building in dispute, tenant-respondent was liable to ejectment on the ground of default. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 22.9.1988 deciding both the questions against the landlord. Revision filed against the said judgment and decree being SCC Revision No. 67 of 1988 filed by the landlord was also dismissed on 5.12.1990 by IIIrd A.D.J., Moradabad hence this writ petition.
(2.) As far as question of default is concerned, I do not find any error in finding recorded by the Courts below. The Courts below have recorded the finding that after receiving notice tenant remitted the amount through money order which was refused by the landlord thereafter tenant deposited the amount under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was later on withdrawn by the landlord. In Kannan v. T.T.K. Kazhagam, AIR 1998 SC 2224 : 1998 SCFBRC 270, it has been held that if deposit is continued to be made under the provision like Section 30 (2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 even after decision of suit (in default) among different claimants to landlordship, tenant will not be treated to be defaulter. In C. Chandramohan v. Sengottaiyan, AIR 2000 SC 568 : 2000 SCFBRC 42, it has been held that if in spite of dismissal of tenant's application for deposit of rent (like Section 30 (1) of U.P. Act) landlord accepted the deposited rent the tenant will not be defaulter. In R. Muthukone v. T. Gopalasami, AIR 2002 S.C. 1830, it has been held that if landlord withdraws rent deposited by tenant in some concluded case then tenant cannot be said to be defaulter.
(3.) As far as the first question regarding age of construction is concerned, even if arguments of learned Counsel for the landlord-petitioner are accepted, the matter will have to be remanded to the trial Court. If the matter is remanded to the trial Court another quarter century may pass before final decision uptill this Court. In view of this the Court suggested that both the learned Counsel should consider to end the litigation between the parties through compromise. The Court suggested that in case landlord was ready to permit the tenant to continue as tenant on enhanced rent then the matter could be settled in between the parties. Learned Counsel for both the parties agreed to the suggestion in principle. I have also held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J., 2004 (2) ARC 64 and H.M. Kitchlu v. A.D.J., 2004 (2) ARC 652, that while granting relief to the tenant against eviction in .respect of building covered by U.P. Rent Regulation Act or maintaining the said relief granted by the Courts below writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. However, learned Counsel for the tenant requested for two or three times enhancement of the rent. The Court is of the opinion that rent of Rs. 650/- per month will be the reasonable rent of the shop in dispute. Learned Counsel for the tenant stated that even though he was agreeing to reasonable enhancement of rent however, enhancement of rent from Rs. 40/- per month to Rs. 650/- per month was excessive. The Court considers the rent of Rs. 650/- per month to be quite reasonable.;