SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by Judge, Small Causes Court dated 10.1.2008 as well as the order dated 27.10.2009. It appears that respondent- Satish Chandra Soni who is landlord has filed a suit for recovery of rent as well as ejectment against petitioner on the ground that he has not deposited rent from 1.1.1998 and he has claimed rent from 2001 to 2004 amounting to Rs.10,800/- as well as damages. Written statement was filed by petitioner and it has been stated that total amount has been depostied but there is delay of only two days. Further title of landlord was also denied. The Judge, Small Causes Court after consideration has recorded a finding that notice was valid though amount has been deposited but said amount has been depostied under Section 30 of the Act No.13 of 1972. As regards, denial of title, a finding has been recorded that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant and it has not been established that respondent is not landlord. The trial court has recorded a finding that as rent has not been deposited under Section 20 sub Clause 4 of the Act, therefore, no benefit can be given. Revisional court has also recorded the same finding that any deposit made under Section 30 of the Act, no benefit can be given to petitioner. After receipt of notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, amount has to be deposited on the first date of hearing under Section 20 Sub Clause 4 of the Act. Admittedly, it has not been done.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. The findings recorded by court below are finding of fact, based on evidence and it is well settled in law that any deposit made under Section 30 of the Act No.13 of 1972 cannot be treated to be sufficient deposit after the service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Admittedly, petitioner has not deposited the amount either on first date of hearing or under Section 20 Sub Clause 4 of the Act. Therefore, any deposit made by petitioner under Section 30 cannot be treated to be sufficient deposit. The findings recorded by court below is finding of fact, based on evidence, needs no interference by this Court.;