PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 6-12-2007 passed in SCC suit no. 3 of 1996. The revision is at the instance of the plaintiff of the aforestated suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff instituted aforestated suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment, on the pleas inter alia that the defendant was the tenant at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month of property no. 53, situate at Purani Mandi, Firozabad. Besides the rent, the defendant was also liable to pay water tax at the rate of 6-25% per annum. It was further pleaded that the defendant has committed default and has not paid the rent in spite of notice of demand and termination. The defendant is in arrears of rent since 31-8-1994. The suit was contested by the defendant opposite party on number of pleas. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the court below framed three issues, as mentioned in the body of the judgment. It has been found under issue no. 2 that the notice was validly served on the defendant. Under issue no. 1, it has been found that the defendant has complied with the provisions of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, the defendant is liable to be relieved against the eviction. Consequently, under issue no. 3, the suit was dismissed so far as the ejectment part is concerned. However, it was provided that the rent deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act can be withdrawn by the plaintiff. Notices were sent to the defendant opposite party by registered post as well as by ordinary process. This Court by the order dated 14-5-2009 has found that the defendant opposite party has been served. It may be placed on record that affidavit of service stating that the defendant opposite party has refused to accept the notice has been filed.
(3.) THE only point urged by the learned counsel for the plaintiff applicant is that the court below has committed illegality in extending the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act to the defendant opposite party without recording a finding as to whether the amount deposited is in sufficient compliance of the aforesaid provision. Elaborating the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the finding recorded by the court below on the question of date of first hearing in paragraph-16 of the judgment is also incorrect. In paragraph-17 of the judgment, the court below has laid the burden on the plaintiff to show that the money deposited by the defendant is insufficient. The submission is that since the defendant opposite party was claiming the benefit of the said Section, the burden lies upon him.;