S.U.Khan - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 2, Sitaram filed S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 1987 against Bhagirath (petitioner), Sunderlal, Ayodhya Prasad and Sri Kalu Ram (Sunderlal, Ayodhya Prasad and Kalu Ram are proforma respondents 3 to 6 in this writ petition). Property in dispute is a shop. Relief claimed in the plaint was for possession on the ground of default and recovery of arrears of rent. It was alleged in the plaint that rate of rent was Rs. 60 per month and water tax was payable in addition thereto, that rent had not been paid since 1.8.1980, that on 30.9.1986 notice of termination of tenancy and payment of rent was sent by landlord to the tenants demanding the rent from 1.8.1980 to 30.9.1986, that due to inadvertence in the said notice water tax could not be mentioned and demanded. Suit was filed on 6.2.1987. In the plaint it was further stated that rent prior to 4.2.1984 having become barred by time, no relief for recovery of the same was being asked for. In para 19 of the written statement, copy of which has been annexed alongwith supplementary-affidavit it was categorically stated that plaintiff was entitled to claim only 3 years rent and the same alongwith interest and cost of the suit had been deposited on 20.4.1987, i.e., on or before the first date of hearing. Trial court held that plaintiff was entitled only to three years rent before filing the suit and as the same had been deposited alongwith interest tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Accordingly J.S.C.C., Mahoba through judgment and decree dated 30.9.1991 dismissed the suit for eviction and decreed the suit for recovery of rent from 3.2.1984 and it was directed that out of the amount deposited by tenant, landlord could withdraw the said amount which came to Rs. 3,183.65. Landlord respondent Sita Ram filed S.C.C. Revision No. 6 of 1991 against the said judgment and decree. A.D.J., Mahoba District Hamirpur through judgment and decree dated 31.5.1994 allowed revision and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court insofar as it was against the landlord and decreed the suit for eviction also. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) THERE cannot be any doubt that in order to avail the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, even time barred rent is required to be deposited by the tenant. This proposition has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier similar suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment had been filed by the landlord and in the said suit tenant had not only deposited the entire rent but had also deposited the excess amount. The earlier suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 7 of 1980 and was decided on 3.11.1981 by J.S.C.C./3rd A.D.J., Hamirpur. In the said judgment it was categorically mentioned by the learned A.D.J. that tenant had deposited an excess/surplus amount of Rs. 2,167.14. The exact sentence is quoted below : "It is worthy to be noticed that the defendants for the purpose of saving his tenancy had deposited a sum of Rs. 167.14 as surplus amount.";