- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. This petition arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the court of Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar. Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by respondents No. 2 dated 6-9-95, whereby the suit filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 was decreed for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop situated on the ground floor of the building No. 112/324, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, hereinafter referred to as the 'shop in question', for recovery of arrears of rent and municipal taxes, petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 13-12-1995, passed by the respondent No. 1, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.
(2.) IN brief, it was pleaded by the respondents No. 3 and 4 that the petitioner was a tenant in the shop in question on monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. Petitioner fell in arrears of rent and did not pay the same from 23. 11. 91 to 30. 11. 92, amounting to Rs. 12227/ -. The amount of municipal taxes was also not paid by the petitioner, therefore, by means of a notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 26-12-92, which was served upon him on 27-1-93, he was called upon to pay the arrears of rent etc. and to vacate the shop in question within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice to dated 26. 12. 92, hut neither the rent was paid nor the shop in question was vacated. Therefore, the suit was filed for ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question and recover' of rent and the amount of municipal taxes on the ground o f default on 16-2-93. Petitioner contested the suit plead ing that he never committed default in payment of rent. It was pleaded that when the rent was not accepted by the landlords-respondent Nos. 3 and4, the same wassentto them by Money order; but they have also refused to receive the said Money order, the1 rent was thereafter, deposited u/s. 30 of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972, for short the Act, in Misc. Case No. 770/70/72, in the court of Munsif, Kanpur Nagar. It was also stated that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of sub-sec. (4) of S. 20 of the Act and the suit was liable to be dismissed, In support of their respective cases the parties have led their evidence. The trial court framed as many as five issues and held that the respondents No. 3 and 4 did not refuse to accept the Money order, petitioner committed default in payment of rent, as the amount of rent and taxes was not paid by the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice of demand and termination of tenancy was valid and that the petitioner was not en titled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. Having recorded the said findings, the suit was decreed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 6-9-95.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The Revisional court took the view that the findings recorded by the trial court were findings of fact and that he had no jurisdic tion to interfere in the said findings. It was held that the relief under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act was discretionary relief and in refusing to exercise the discre tion in favour of the petitioner-tenant, trial court did not commit any error of law. Further the amount deposited by the petitioner was short by Rs. 899-13, and that the amount deposited by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act could not be taken into consideration as the said deposits was invalid. The revisional court thus upheld the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner vide its judgment and order dated 13-12-95. Petitioner, thereafter, filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of the orders passed by the two courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appear ing for the contesting respondents finally as the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the case was ripe for hearing.;