- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the judg ment and decree dated 8-2-1992 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut, respondent No. 2 and order dated 5-4-1997 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the revision against aforesaid judgment.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No. 3 filed suit No. 538 of 1984 for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damage for use and occupation of the disputed premises against the petitioner on the allegations that a notice was sent to the petitioner demanding arrears of rent from 20- 12-1981 to 26-9-1984 at the rate of Rs. 55/- per month, on 22-8-1984. THE notice on him was served on 27-8-1984. But inspite of service of said notice he did not comply with the same. He committed default in payment of arrears of rent and was liable for eject ment. The petitioner contested the suit. It was stated that rent was deposited in the proceedings under Section 30 (2) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short referred to as the Act ). He did not commit any default. The owner of the premises in dispute was respondent No. 3 and his mother Smt. Neelma jointly, and both having not joined, the suit was not main tainable. The number of the shop in ques tion is 231 while it has been wrongly men tioned as 232 in the notice. The trial Court decreed the suit on the finding that deposit under Section 30 (2) of the Act was made after service of the notice and, secondly, there was no material to show that there was any bonafide dispute regarding the title of the property in be tween the alleged co-owners. Notice was held to be valid and it was found that respondent No. 3 was sole landlord. The petitioner filed revision against the judg ment and decree of the trial Court which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 5. 4-1997 of respondent No, 1.
(3.) SHRI P. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the petitioner had not committed default in payment of arrears of rent as after receipt of notice he had deposited the amount under Section 30 (2) of the Act. The tenant is entitled to deposit the rent in the Court under sub-section (1) when the landlord refuses to accept the rent and under sub-section (.) where any bonafide doubt or dispute his arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of the building under the tenancy of the applicant. In case the landlord sends the notice to the tenant demanding rent from him, the tenant after receipt of such notice is bound to pay rent to the landlord. He is not entitled to deposit the rent under Section 30 (1) of the Act after receipt of the notice and any deposit made by him after receipt of the notice shall not be treated as valid. The landlord by giving notice signifies that he is prepared to accept the rent and after receipt of the notice there is no justification for the tenant to deposit rent in Court under Sec tion 30 (1) of the Act.;