Amarbir Singh Gill, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is a landlady of a shop at Bahraich. in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 11.10.1988 of Hnd Additional District Judge, Bahraich, accepting the revision against the decree passed by the Judge Small Causes Court in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) The facts of the case are that Smt. Ganpati Devi petitioner purchased a shop from its erstwhile owner Hira Lal on 19.5.1977, which was already on rent with opposite party Gokul Prasad. It was alleged that the petitioner as well as Hira Lal aforesaid had informed the tenant of the transfer of the title of the shop in favour of the petitioner and that the tenant should attorn to petitioner as landlady and pay the rent to her. After repeated demand for the payment of the rent, the petitioner served the legal notice on 4.11.82 claiming arrears of rent with effect from 19.5.77 to 19.11.82. However, the tenant did not accept the notice and refused acceptance, whereafter the land-lady filed a suit for arrears of rent, damages and eviction. Tenant Gokul Prasad contested the claim, he admitted the relationship of land-lady and tenant between the parties, but claimed that he was never given any notice of the transfer either by the petitioner or by the earlier owner Hira Lal. He came to know of it of his own and thereafter he made efforts to pay the rent to the petitioner, but the same was not accepted. He even sent the arrears of rent by post to the petitioner as well as to the earlier owner, but the same was refused. Having no other option but to deposit the rent under Section 30 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), he deposited the rent with the permission of the court and even continued the deposit of rent for ensuing months thereafter till the filing of the suit. He even deposited the rent on the date of first hearing in the suit. He claimed the benefit of Section 20 (4) of Act No. XIII of 1972. He, thus, claimed that he was neither in arrears of rent nor he received any legal notice.
(3.) The Judge Small Cause Court decreed the suit of plaintiff against the petitioner for arrears of rent and eviction. Gokul Prasad filed revision petition and after considering the merit, the learned Additional District Judge differed with the decision of trial court and allowed the revision and dismissed the suit of the petitioner, which decision is being impugned in this writ petition.;