S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Coun­sel for the parties. This writ petition was dismissed in default several times and then restored. This is tenant's writ petition. Mrs RE. Boyce original landlady (since deceased and survived by respondent Nos. 3 to 8) filed suit No.264 of 1972 against tenant petitioner for his eviction. Property in dispute is constructed portion in the form of motor garage used by the tenant for repairing the motor cars etc. Rate of rent is Rs. 30/- per month.
(2.) LANDLADY gave notice on 29.12.1971 of termination of tenancy and demand of rent from 15.06.1971 to 14.12.1971. The notice was served on 30.12.1971. Admittedly, the tenant paid the arrears of rent demanded through the notice within one month. However, suit was filed on the ground that old Rent Control Act i.e. U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 was not applicable to the building in dispute. Suit was filed in April, 1972. The new Rent Control Act, i.e. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was enforced w.e.f. 15.07.1972. Both the Courts below have found that building in dispute was con­structed in the year, 1955 hence old Rent control Act was not applicable. Written Statement was filed on 19.07.1972 i.e. after four days of enforcement of the new Act. In para No. 14 of the written statement benefit of 1972 Act was claimed. In the suit initially defence was struck off but afterwards through order dated 12.05.1979 J.S.C.C. recalled the earlier order. Against order dated 12.05.1979 Civil Revision No. 1984 of 1979 was filed by landlady plaintiff which was dismissed by IV A.D.J. Jhansi (Annexure -4 is the copy of the said judgment which does not bar the date). Ultimately J.S.C.C./Munsif Court No.3, Jhansi decreed the suit for eviction through judgment and decree dated 13.11.1980. Against the said judgment and decree Civil Revision No. 275 of 1980 was filed, IInd A.D.J. Jhansi dismissed the revision through judgment and order dated 25.11.1981, hence this writ petition. Revisional Court did not say any thing regarding the merit of the case or the controversy involved. It only said that findings of the trial Court were findings of fact, hence Revisional Court could not interfere in the said findings. The trial Court mainly decreed the suit on the ground that defence of the tenant should be struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. and he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the new Act of 1972. I do not agree with the said finding for two reasons. Firstly the earlier order striking off the defence had been set aside afterwards by the trial Court itself and the said order had been affirmed by the revisional Court. Secondly, even if defence has been struck off, the tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, if the said sub Section is applicable and on the date of first hearing tenant has deposited the entire rent aiongwith interest and landlord's cost of the suit.
(3.) HOWEVER , the main point to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether suit was maintainable in view of the fact that the entire demanded rent had been paid within a month of the receipt of notice. There can not be any doubt that in case suit had been filed after the enforcement of the new Act of 1972 then it would not have been maintainable. By virtue of Section 20(2)(a) of the new Act of 1972 eviction on the ground of default is permissible only if within a month from receipt of notice rent is not paid. In the instant case admittedly rent had been paid within a month of receipt of the notice.;