Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner claims herself to be the owner and landlady of the property No. C-19/218, situate at Maldahiya, Varanasi, filed Suit No. 86 of 1993, in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Varanasi for eviction of the tenants from the property in dispute on the ground of arrears of rent.
(2.) PRIOR to the institution of the suit, the petitioner gave a composite notice dated 14.3.1991 demanding arrears of rent from August, 1988 to February, 1991 terminating tenancy and eviction of the tenants. The notice was replied by the tenants respondent by their reply dated 2.4.1991 denying the allegations of arrears of rent. Subsequently another notice was given by the petitioner on 14.3.1991 wherein arrears of rent was demanded from March, 1991 onwards which was also not paid by the respondents. Respondents filed their joint written statements. The plea taken by them was that they had deposited the rent in the court below under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hence they were neither defaulters nor there was any ground available to the landlady for their eviction from the accommodation in dispute and as such the suit was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) THE trial court after going through the pleadings and the arguments of the parties concluded that the deposit made by the tenants under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was insufficient and did not satisfy the requirements of Section 20 (4) of the said Act. It was also found as a matter of fact that the tenants respondent neither deposited the rent demanded in the notice or in the suit on the first date of hearing, hence decreed the suit vide judgment and order dated 3.9.1997 and ordered the eviction of the tenants from the property in dispute. The respondents tenants except Sri Vinod Kumar who retired from the partnership in 1994 filed revision against the aforesaid judgment of the trial court wherein they relied upon the deposit made under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.;