S.U.Khan - (1.) -This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 3, Sri Sirajudddin, filed S.C.C. Suit No. 341 of 1988 against original petitioner for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent. Admitted rate of rent is Rs. 18 per month. Property in dispute is residential in nature and contains one room. In the plaint, it was alleged that defendant had not paid rent from 1.7.1984 to 31.3.1988 inspite of notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 6.4.1988 served on 9.4.1988. In para 4 of the plaint it was specifically stated : "That defendant without tendering rent to plaintiff began to deposit rent under Section 30 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in proceedings No. 404/70 of 1985, Gafooran Nisa v. Siraj Uddin but on 31.7.1985 the Court of Munsif city passed the orders directing defendant to make payment of rent directly to plaintiff both file was consigned but defendant did not pay rent to plaintiff inspite of his willingness and orders of the Court."
(2.) DEFENDANT pleaded that in proceeding under Section 30 of the Act she had deposited the rent upto August, 1985. In the suit tenant deposited entire rent from August 1985 to September, 1988 on the first date of hearing in order to claim the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Total amount deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing was Rs. 1,035. Trial court/J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar, dismissed the suit for eviction through judgment and decree dated 17.1.1990. Suit for recovery of arrears of rent was decreed. Against the judgment and decree by the trial court, landlord-respondent No. 3 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 195 of 1993. XIIth A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 9.3.1994, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court refusing to grant the relief of eviction and decreed the suit for eviction also, hence this writ petition by the tenant. The landlord contended that the amount had been deposited under Section 30 of the Act without tendering the same to him, hence it was invalid. Section 30 (1) of the Act is quoted below : "If any person claiming to be a tenant of a building tenders any amount as rent in respect of the building to its alleged landlord and the alleged landlord refuses to accept the same then the former may deposit such amount in the prescribed manner and continue to deposit any rent which he alleges to be due for any subsequent period in respect of such building until the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept it".
(3.) ALONGWITH the counter-affidavit landlord himself has filed his objections before Munsif in the case under Section 30 of the Act. In para 7 it was stated that no money order was tendered to landlord. Objections were filed on 3.7.1985. Affidavit was also filed. In para 8 of the affidavit sworn on 8.7.1985 it was stated that deponent is ready to accept the rent and tenant must be directed to pay rent to him and application under Section 30 should be dismissed. Munsif on 31.7.1985, passed an order on the objections of the landlord. In the said order it was directed that tenant should directly pay rent to the landlord. The tenant in her cross-examination, copy of which is annexed alongwith the counter-affidavit, stated that she had sent money order to the landlord. However, she could not say as to whether receipt or coupon of money order was filed by her or not. The revisional court held that as it was not proved that rent was directly tendered to the landlord and he refused to accept the amount, hence deposit under Section 30 of the Act was not in accordance with the provision of law.;