Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This is tenant's writ petition. Original landlord -respondent No. 3, Radhey Shyam, since deceased and survived by legal representatives had filed eviction suit against the tenant -petitioner in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 73 of 1981. J.S.C.C./Munsif, Hapur dismissed the suit through judgment and decree dated 7.9.1982. Against the said judgment and decree landlord -respondent filed S.C.C. Revision No. 265 of 1982. IVth A.D.J. Ghaziabad through judgment and order dated 19.7.1984 allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for ejectment. The said revisional order has been challenged by the tenant through the present writ petition.
(2.) LANDLORD asserted that the rate of rent was Rs. 60/ - per month. However, the Courts below found the version of the tenant in this regard to be correct. The tenant had asserted that the rate of rent was Rs. 30/ - per month. Tenant further asserted that the rent for four months i.e. September to December, 1980 sent by him through money order was refused by the landlord. Notice was given in August 1981 and the suit was filed on 15.12.1981. In the summons issued to the tenant 12.3.1982 was fixed. On 12.3.1982 petitioner deposited the entire admitted amount of arrears of rent with interest from September, 1980 to March, 1982 in the Court of J.S.C.C./Munsif, Hapur as required under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. Copy of the tender has been annexed along with the rejoinder affidavit. In the judgment of the Trial Court also there is mention of this fact. The Revisional Court held that the tenant was not defaulter for the period from September to December, 1980 as the rent for the said period had been sent by him through money order but it was refused by landlord. However, Revisional Court held the tenant to be defaulter from January to July 1981 and liable to eviction on that ground. Revisional Court did not say a single word about the rent deposited by the tenant in the suit and tenant's claim for benefit of section 20(4) of the Act. Even though the matter is quite old still the Court has got no alternative but to remand the matter to the Revisional Court to decide the question of benefit of section 20(4) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The copy of the tender annexed as Annexure '5' to the writ petition shows that on 12.3.1982 rent @ Rs. 30/ - per month from September, 1980 to March, 1982 (19 months) amounting to Rs. 570/ - was deposited. Accordingly it appears that through the said tender entire rent was deposited. There is nothing on record of this writ petition to show as to whether interest and the cost of the suit as required by section 20(4) of the Act was also deposited or not.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Revisional Court to decide the revision afresh. Revisional Court shall decide the question as to whether the tenant has complied with the provisions of section 20(4) of the Act or not. Other findings of the Revisional Court are affirmed. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J. : 2004 (54) ALR 177 : 2004 (13) AIC 42 (Alld.), that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Same principle will apply while setting aside the order of eviction and remanding the matter. Accordingly it is directed that irrespective of the result of the revision the tenant petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord w.e.f. September, 2007 onwards @ Rs. 500/ - per month.;