Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.K. Birla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Notices to the respondents were directed to be made through publication in two news papers of the city and to that effect learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the said publication was made and the copies of the two news papers were filed by him alongwith an application in the office on 30th October, 2006. Office is directed to trace out the same and place on record.
(2.) INSPITE of publication none has put in appearance on behalf of respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that finding of the Trial Court that the tenant was not in arrears of rent is patently erroneous and not in accordance with law. He contends that the Revisional Court has also illegally affirmed the said finding. A perusal of the finding recorded by the Trial Court reveals that when the suit was filed in the year 1984, the respondents have not deposited the arrears of rent as enhanced w.e.f. 15.7.1972 on the first date of hearing as contemplated by section 20(4) of U.P. Act No 13 of 1972.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings and after expiry of ten years the respondent tenants moved an application for permission to deposit entire arrears of rent. The said application was allowed by the Court on 14.7.1994 subsequent thereto deposit was made. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the said deposit made after lapse of ten years and much after expiry of the date of first hearing could not have been a ground for giving benefit to the tenant and holding that he was not in arrears of rent since the same have been deposited. The Revisional Court while considering this plea of the petitioner was of the opinion that since the exact amount due against the tenant was not disclosed in the plaint therefore, the tenant was unable to deposit the said amount on the first date of hearing. On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, the Revisional Court has concluded that when the exact amount came to be known to the tenant then he applied by means of an application stating therein that he was prepared to deposit the entire amount of arrears of rent and that he had not been able to do so earlier also because of mistake of his Counsel. The Revisional Court was of the view that since the Trial Court had itself permitted the deposit of the arrears of rent by an order dated 14.7.1994 which was nearly ten years after the first date of hearing the said deposit was held to be a valid deposit for the purpose of giving benefit of section 20(4) of the Act.;