S.U.Khan - (1.) -At the time of hearing no one appeared on behalf of respondent hence only the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners were heard.
(2.) PROPERTY in dispute is a khaperail shop of 10 feet x 12 feet. Rent is Rs. 20 per month. However, under interim order passed in this writ petition tenants are paying Rs. 100 per month rent. This is tenants' writ petition. Landlords respondent Nos. 1 to 9 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 19 of 1990 against tenants petitioners for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent. Tenants pleaded that entire rent had been deposited under Section 30 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 hence they were not defaulter. The trial court held that deposit of rent under Section 30 of the Act was not valid and decreed the suit for eviction through judgment and decree dated 17.8.1994. Against the said judgment and decree S.C.C. Revision No. 52 of 1994 was filed which was dismissed by Ist A.D.J., Rampur on 28.11.1995 hence this writ petition. Initially Sibtey-Nabi was the landlord who died before filing of the suit leaving behind respondent Nos. 1 to 9 as his heirs. Similarly original tenant was Mohd.Yaqub Khan who died during pendency of the suit and was substituted by the petitioners. Landlords respondents sent a notice to original tenants on 2.7.1990 terminating the tenancy and demanding the rent from 1.11.1976 to 30.6.1990 (total Rs. 4,920). The tenants replied the notice stating therein that rent had been deposited under Section 30 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in case No. 9 of 1977. Original landlord had died on 3.9.1988. However, even after his death no application for substitution of respondent Nos. 1 to 9 was filed in the case under Section 30 of the Act (Misc. Case No. 9 of 1972). Same thing was pleaded by the defendants in the written statement filed in the suit. It was further pleaded that subsequently rent till 31.10.1992 had also been deposited in the case under Section 30 of the Act (Misc. Case No. 9 of 1977). Tenants contended that firstly when notice was received by original tenants, they were not defaulter for four months and secondly tenants had deposited the entire rent and they were entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act.
(3.) LANDLORDS contended that deposit of rent under Section 30 of the Act was not valid as no notice of any deposit was given to the landlord and that provisions of Rule 21 (5) of the Rules framed under the Act were not complied with. It was further contended that after the death of original landlord Sibtey-Nabi on 3.9.1988 deposit in his name was not valid. In para No. 8 of the writ petition it has been stated that in the eviction suit giving rise to the instant writ petition tenants deposited Rs. 735 on 6.9.1993 which included Rs. 300 towards rent from 1.11.1992 to 31.8.1993 and cost of the suit including counsel fee. Written statement was filed on 27.9.1993.;