S D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings in Suit No. 1759 of 1975 filed by Smt. Shiv Dulari, respondent No. 2, against the petitioner, in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Kanpur, fo rejectment of the petitioner from the disputed accommodation and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages with costs.
(2.) THE property in dispute is premises no. 106/264, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur. THE rate of rent is Rs.19/- per month. The suit was dismissed by the trial court by its order dated 10th January, 1979. Aggrieved by the said decision, a revision was filed. The revision came up for hearing before the 1st Additional District Judge, Kanpur, who, by his judgment dated 6th April, 1981, allowed the revision, set aside the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit for ejectment and for pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs.19/- per month. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the decision dated 6th April, 1981, in the present petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before me., His first contention is that the view taken by the revisional court, that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the deposit made under Section 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a view manifestly erroneous in law. His second contention is that the tenancy of the petitioner, in fact, commence from the first day of each month and, consequently, four months' rent was not actually due on the date when the notice was given and, therefore, the suit for ejectment was not maintainable, as the case did not come under section 20 (2) (a) of the Act. In the instant case, the notice of demand and for determination of tenancy was issued on 26th July, 1976. This was served on the petitioner on 31st July, 1976 In the notice dated 26th July, 1976, the rent demanded was for the period from 23rd March, 1976, onwards. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the rent within one month of the service of the notice, but he deposited the amount under Section 30 of the Act on 4th October, 1976, after a period of one month had already expired The question, therefore, is as to whether a deposit made under section 30 of the Act after the expiry of one month from the date of service of the notice of demand and whether such a deposit can be taken to be a valid deposit rendering the tenant liable for eviction from the property.;