- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE facts of this case, in brief, are that one Ramesh Chand was the original landlord who died on 20- 11-1998. He had let out the disputed shop to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 175/- including taxes, which was later on enhanced to Rs. 300/- and thereafter to Rs. 400/- including taxes. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are proforma respondents as they are not claiming any right of ownership/land-lordship with respect to the disputed shop. It is because of their impleadment as proforma defendants in the suit that they are impleaded as respondents 2 to 6 in this writ petition. After the death of Ramesh Chand, his heirs/respondents gave notice dated 27-12-1999 to the petitioner stating that Suresh Kumar, respondent No. 1, is the lone landlord of the disputed shop and rent from 1- 4-1999 to 26-12-1999 was due against the petitioner which he had not paid despite demand making him liable for eviction from the disputed shop. The petitioner gave his reply dated 22-2-2000 to the aforesaid notice asserting that the entire rent was sent to the deceased Ramesh Chand which he refused to accept and after his death all his heirs started demanding rent from him separately, hence the petitioner was compelled to deposit the rent up to 31- 12-1999 in Misc. Case No. 57 of 1999 in the Court of Civil Judge under Section 30 (2) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed Suit No. 8 of 2000 on 6-3- 2000 claiming that the petitioner was tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month besides taxes which he had not paid from 1-4-1998 to 26-12-1999. The petitioner also moved an application dated 28-3-2000 alleging that he was depositing the entire rent claimed alongwith costs, interest etc. amounting to Rs. 12,570. 50p. The petitioner also filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations. Respondent No. 1 filed his objection. The petitioner again deposited rent from 1-4-2000 to 30-4-2000 by tender.
(3.) THE trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and order dated 18-12-2000 against which the petitioner filed Revision No. 50 of 2000 before the District Judge, Bijnor. THE District Judge rejected the revision vide impugned order dated 19-2-2001, hence this writ petition. The trial Court while decreeing the suit and dismissing the claim of the tenant has held that 28-3-2000 was the first date of hearing by which date the tenant had not deposited the entire arrears of rent as required under Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 ). From the aforesaid facts it appears that the suit was filed on 6-3-2000.;