Sangeeta Chandra, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for quashing of the judgment and order dated 12.11.2013 passed by learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut in S.C.C. Suit No.29 of 2012 and for quashing the judgment and order dated 24.02.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Meerut in S.C.C. Revision No. 23 of 2014.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a tenant of a shop situated in a building bearing No.195 situate at Police Street, Opposite Ganga Motor Committee, Meerut Cantt. Meerut on a monthly rent of Rs.800/-. The petitioner has been paying rent regularly each month to the landlord, but receipts were given for such payment sometimes after six months. The petitioner had paid rent up till 31.12.2011 to the landlord, but the receipts of the same has been issued only up till 31.08.2011. The petitioner got a notice issued through his counsel to the landlord on 03.02.2012 requesting him to issue rent receipts for the period 01.09.2011 to 31.12.2011 and further requested to accept rent for the period 01.01.2012 to 31.01.2012. The petitioner also tendered rent though money order dated 08.02.2012 at the correct address of the landlord which was refused by the landlord after which the petitioner started depositing the rent in court under Section 30 of the Rent Control Act. The petitioner received a notice on 18.02.2012 by the landlord in which mention was made that he was in arrears of rent for the past six months and in default thereof terminated the tenancy. The petitioner replied to the notice through his counsel on 14.03.2012. Nevertheless, S.C.C. Suit No. 29 of 2012 was instituted by the landlord on totally false grounds that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent w.e.f. 01.09.2011 and with a further assertion that the shop in question was newly constructed and the provisions of Rent Control Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. It was also alleged that despite demand through notice the tenant failed to vacate the premises and, therefore, was liable to be evicted through orders of the Court.
(3.) In the written statement filed before the learned court below the assertions made before this Court were repeated and it was also stated in the oral statement before the learned court below by the tenant that he had deposited rent in court under Section 30 of the Act before the notice dated 18.02.2012 was issued or received by him.;