S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This is tenants writ petition. Landlord-respondent No. 3 Lala Sumer Chand, filed SCC Suit No. 10 of 1989, against tenant-petitioner before JSCC. Saharanpur. In the plaint of the suit relief of eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent was sought. The suit was decreed for both the reliefs by JSCC/1st Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur on 15.4.1989. Against the said judgment and decree petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 100 of 1989. IVth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 4.3.1991 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.
(2.) Admitted rate of rent is Rs. 45/- per month. The only point involved in this petition is regarding validity of deposit of rent by the tenant under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Learned Counsel for the parties have not argued any other point. Both the Courts below have held that the deposit was not valid as it was not proved that before making deposit under Section 30 of the Act rent was sent to the landlord through money order which was refused by him. Tenant filed money order receipt and coupon to prove the refusal. In the money order receipt complete address of the landlord was not mentioned. Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that the receipt issued by the post-office at the time of accepting money order contains only the name of the payee and the city mentioned in his address; number of house and name of locality is not mentioned in the receipt. Courts below held that the coupons which were filed by the landlord did not contain the address of the landlord/payee. The portion of the money order-form which contains the address of the payee is retained by the post-office and the portion which is returned to the sender contains senders name and address and either signatures of the payee or endorsement of his refusal made by the post-man.
(3.) Babu Ram Sharma appeared as witness in the suit. He gave evidence on two dates 6.10.1988 and 17.1.1989. Copy of the statement given on first date is Annexure-6 and copy of statement given on the next date is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. In Annexure-7 tenant clearly stated that paper Nos. 87-C/1 and 87-C/2 were money order receipts and 88-C was money order coupon through which he had sent the rent from 1.8.1978 to 31.5.1981 at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month total Rs. 1,530/- through two money orders to Sumer Chand. He further stated that on 14.10.1980 alongwith reply notice he sent Rs. 1,170/- through money order to the plaintiff which was the rent from 1.8.1978 to 30.9.1980 receipt of which was Paper No. 91-C. It has been held in S.N. Chaudhary v. M/s. Naug and Co., 1981 ARC 680, that money order receipt alongwith oral statement is sufficient to prove that rent was sent to the landlord through money order. Part of Paragraph 4 of the said authority is quoted below : 4. "The other argument on inadmissibility was regarding the money order coupon Paper No. 50. it is true that it does not contain the reseal of post-office. The post-man also denied it to be the coupon which was taken by him for delivery to the appellants father. It may be suspicious and may be ignored. This is exactly what the Appellate Court did. It did not place any reliance on it. Even if it may be assumed for a moment that the letter sent by Superintendent of Post-offices could not be utilised the finding of the Appellate Court that the money order was sent within time based on the money order receipt and the evidence of defendant-respondent, cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law. It is true the receipt by itself does not prove that the amount sent was the arrears of rent but the receipt alongwith statement do not leave any room for doubt that the amount sent was towards arrears of rent.";