V.P.MATHUR, J. - (1.) DELAY in filing this revision has been condoned vide order dated 22.1.1980 and in pursuance of the same, the revision itself was taken up for admission.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by the Ist Additional Judge S.C.C. (Ist Additional District Judge) Jhansi in S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 1980 of his Court. The Suit had been filed by Raghubir Singh Tandon against the present revisionist for eviction the premises in suit and for arrears of rent and damages for occupation. The suit was decreed. Now the contention of the revisionist is that the order of the learned Court below is wrong, as there was a dispute as regards relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also because the revisionist had already vacated the premises and handed over the same to Ranjit Singh who had been recognised by the Housing Co-operative Society as the owner of the premises. It was further contended that the deposit had been made under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in face of contest putforth by Raghubir Singh Tandon and therefore the decree for arrears of rent and damages was not called for. I have very carefully considered all these facts. In Para 5 of the affidavit filed by Raghubir Singh Tandon, paragraph No. 9 of the written statement filed by the present revision is in the Small Cause Case has been quoted and there is no dispute as regards its correctness. In para 9 of the written statement, the defendant-revisionist admits that the house in question was taken on rent from the plaintiff by the defendant on 24.4.1978. He also mentions that he had regularly paid rent to him up to the month of August, 1979. This is a clear admission of the title of the plaintiff of the suit and the law is that when once it is admitted that the tenancy had been granted by the plaintiff and to him rent had been paid, the tenant will be estopped from changing his stand. It may be that the other brother of the plaintiff contested the claim to the house in question and gave a notice to the present revisionist. There was, thus, a dispute between the two brothers regarding ownership of the house. The defendant revisionist had, however, nothing to do with it. He was the tenant admitted by the plaintiff Raghubir Singh Tandon and there was between them, the relationship of landlord and the tenant. He had nothing to do with Ranjit Singh. Therefore, on the basis of the notice that he received he could not rush to the Court to make a deposit under Section 30(2)of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It is not a case of bonafide dispute, so far as the revisionist is concerned, there is no dispute according to his own admission in para 9 of the written statement as regards his landlord. Then again his having vacated the house is of no avail, because he allegedly handed over possession to Ranjit Singh who was not his landlord and, therefore, if in collusion with him, he did so, he will be liable to the payment of rent and damages for use and occupation till so long as the landlord does not obtain possession.
(3.) SO far as the deposit under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is concerned, in the case of Har Prasad Garg v. Dharmdeo Nagpal and others, 1981 ARC Page 26, it has been held that such an amount cannot be deducted towards rent and it is only the amount to be deposited under Section 30(1) which is deductible. The learned Court below has also considered this point and has rightly come to the conclusion that there was no bonafide dispute concerning the landlordship vis-a-vis the revisionist tenant and therefore he should not have resorted to proceeding under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. He cannot therefore take any benefit out of that deposit.;