- (1.) -HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is tenants' writ petition. Landlord-respondent No. 3 Shaukat Ali filed S. C. C. suit No. 5 of 1993 against the tenants-petitioners for eviction from the house in dispute which contains two rooms. Rent is Rs. 3. 12 per month. Suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. The tenants deposited certain amount (Rs. 500/-) and claimed benefit under section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 which was granted to them by the Trial Court/j. S. C. C. Meerut, who dismissed the suit on 4. 3. 1997.
(3.) AGAINST the said judgment and decree landlord-respondent filed S. C. C. Revision No. 72 of 1997, Vth A. Q. J. Meerut allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 17. 3. 1999, set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit for eviction. Revisional Court allowed the revision on the ground that cost of the notice dated 30. 11. 1992 given by the landlord to the tenants before filing the suit (amounting to Rs. 150/-) was not deposited. In the plaint it was not stated that plaintiff had incurred any expenses in sending the notice. It was only by way of replica that this fact was stated. The copy of replica is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. In para 4 of the said replica it was stated that on the first date of hearing of the suit tenant was required to deposit Rs. 629. 29, however he had deposited only Rs. 500/ -. In the said para split of requirement was also given which included Rs. 150 as cost of the notice. Replica was filed on 1. 8. 1994. Written statement had been filed on 6. 9. 1993 and it was stated in para 16 thereof that entire required amount amounting to Rs. 500/- was being deposited to claim the benefit of section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1974. Trial Court held that the said amount was deposited even before the first date.;