- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. This writ petition by the tenant is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-2-1992 of the revisional Court, respondent No. 1, whereby the judgment of the trial Court has been reversed and the plaintiff's suit for recovery of rent and ejectment has been decreed against the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts relevant in brief are that respondent No. 2 is the landlord of the disputed premises and late Ganga Charar, Bari, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was the tenant at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. It is not disputed that rent upto 30-9-82 was paid by late Ganga Charan Bari to the plaintiff on different dates. As per the plaint allegations there after no rent was paid by Ganga Charan Bari and rent became due from 1-10-82. THE plaintiff demanded the arrears of rent from late Ganga Charan by serving a notice on him on 25-6-85. By the same notice the tenancy was also determined. Since the notice did not evoke any response, the landlord respondent filed suit for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of default. It may be mentioned here that before the filing of the suit Ganga Charan Bari died on 25- 6-83, hence suit was filed against his legal representatives, L e. , the present petitioners. The suit was contested by the present petitioners and their defence was that rent from 1-10-82 and onwards was rendered to the landlord by late Ganga Charan Bari and when it was not accepted, the same was sent by Money Order at the plaintiffs address. Money Order was not accepted by the landlord and the same was received back with the endorsement of "refusal" and thereafter the tenant deposited the entire arrears of rent from 1-10-82 to 30-4-85 in Court under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This deposit was made much prior to the service of notice of demand sent by the plaintiff. After the demand notice was received, the rent for the months of May and June, 1985, was again sent to the landlord through Money Order but this time also the same was returned back as refused. Thus, ac cording to the defence version on the date of service of notice of demand, rent for more than four months was not due and, therefore, the tenant could not be said to be a "defaulter" within the meaning of clause (a) of Section 20 (2) of the Act. The trial Court accepted the defence version and dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that since rent upto 30-4-85 had been duly deposited by the defendant tenant under Section 30 (1) of the Act, rent for more than four months was not due on the date of service of notice of demand and accordingly no decree of eviction could be passed. The landlord preferred revision against the judgment of the trial Court and the same has been allowed by respondent No. 1 by the im pugned order.
(3.) PARTIES' Counsel were heard at length. Records have also been perused. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the revisional Court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court that the tenant petitioner committed no default in payment of arrears of rent and accordingly was not liable for eviction ?;