Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.K. Saxena, earned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohammad Arif Khan, earned Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 11.
(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the Judgment and order dated 17.4.1993, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, decreeing the suit of the respondents for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner -tenant and the Judgment and order dated 27.5.1998, passed by the revislonal court, XVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, dismissing the revision of the petitioner. It emerges from record that the petitioner was inducted as tenant at a meagre rent of Rs. 4 or 5 per month for one room with some open space in House No. 405/2, Mohalla Chaupatia Road, Sarain Mali Khan, bearing Municipal No. 439/22 Hardot Road, Lucknow, by the erstwhile landlords Sri Shivendra Pratap Singh, etc. The property was later on sold to the respondents 3 to 11. The landlord Mohammad Iqram alongwith his two sons filed S.C.C. Suit No. 493 of 1985 against the tenant in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow, seeking decree for arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and ejectment from the premises. It was pleaded in the suit that the tenant did not pay the rent from the month of May, 1981. On demand of rent by the landlord, the tenant petitioner informed that a sum of Rs. 150 was deposited under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in the Court. However, despite this, a registered A.D. notice dated 27.5.1985 was served on the tenant requiring him to pay entire rent with effect from 1.5.1981. Earlier also, the present landlord alongwith Sri Shivendra Pratap Singh had served a notice dated 31.7.1981 on the tenant demanding the rent from 1.4.1980, and as such the tenancy was determined. The landlord did not refer to the previous notice sent to the tenant.
(3.) A written statement was filed indicating therein that the rent was offered to the landlord and on his refusal to accept it. the same was deposited under Section 30(1) of the Act. The rent was sent by money -order also. The petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court as in Pasupati Singh v. 1st Additional District Judge, Ballia and Ors., 1981 ARC 222, In support of his submission that the rent sent by the money order was a valid tender. As per earned Counsel for the petitioner -tenant, the landlords neither appeared before the court below, nor did they inform the tenant about their willingness to accept the rent from the petitioner. This rent was deposited in Civil Misc. Case No. 225 of 1981 and as such no amount was due. The tenant was justified in depositing the rent under Section 30(1) of the Act. The petitioner -tenant had led both documentary and oral evidence in support of his submission before the trial court. The details of the documents filed before the lower court have been indicated in para 4 of the writ petition. As per petitioner, the learned trial court under misconception has allowed the suit, refused to treat the deposit of rent made by him in the Court under Section 30, Sub -section (1) of the Act on the ground of non -compliance of Rule 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Being aggrieved of the judgment, a S.C.C. Revision No. 214 of 1993 was filed by the tenant, which was dismissed on 22.5.1998. This order has been assailed on several grounds by the petitioner -tenant. Sri B.K. Saxena, earned Counsel for the petitioner -tenant has submitted that the learned courts below have committed manifest error of law in failing to appreciate that the petitioner had deposited the rent after having tendered the same to the landlord who had refused to accept the same. The courts below ought to have appreciated the act of the tenant in depositing the rent in the Court. The trial court has wrongly held that the deposit of rent was not in accordance with law and prescribed procedure. The judgments passed by the learned courts below are in conflict with the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court as in Kameshwar Singh v. Vlth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, 1987 (1) ARC 1 :, 1987 (1) AWC 91 (SC).;