- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, Counsel for the petitioners, Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is landlord's petition. Late Dharam Prakash Gupta, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was owner and landlord of the disputed shop situate in Mohalla Reti Street, Chaumukhapul, Moradabad and late Mahmood Hasan, father of respondent Nos. 2 to 10 was tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 15. The tenancy used to commence on 19th day of each month and expire on 18th day of the succeeding month. The tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 330/- under Section 30 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Misc. Case No. 136 of 1988 towards rent for the period 19-3-1988 to 18-1-1990. Late Dharam Prakash Gupta, landlord contested the case on the ground that rent was never refused by him and the same must be paid to him, in cash. Rent was not paid by late Mahmood Hasan, tenant to the landlord, as such, the tenancy was determined through notice dated 22-8-1990. On non-compliance of notice dated 22-8-1990 by the tenant, landlord instituted S. C. C. suit No. 108 of 1990 for ejectment of the tenant and arrears of rent together with expenses of Counsel and damages.
(3.) IN the meantime, the tenant Sri Mahmood Hasan died on 1-1-1991 and respondent Nos. 2 to 11 were substituted in his place. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6 contested the suit by filing their written statement denying the plaint allegations. It is alleged by the petitioners that a fictitious and bogus tender together with vakalatnama dated 1-1- 1991 were field in the Court of judge Small Causes Court, Moradabad showing that Sri Rama Shanker Gupta Advocate was engaged by deceased tenant. No thumb impression on tender was affixed and the Vakalatnama contained thumb impression of some other person allegedly that of late Mohd. Hasan. The Presiding Officer signed the tender on 3-1-1991 permitting Sri Rama Shankar Gupta, Advocate to deposit the sum on behalf of the deceased tenant. The claim of the petitioners is that the tender did not bear thumb impression/signatures of late Mahmood Hasan but it was signed by Sri R. S. Gupta, Advocate, as such, sum of Rs. 500/- purporting to be deposit under Section 20 (4) of the Act was invalid and the tenants were not entitled to the benefit of such deposit.;