J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition seeking quashing of the orders dated 9.4.1997 and 15.2.1994 passed by the revisional court and the trial court respectively.
(2.) The dispute relates to a ground floor portion of house No. 104/458, Sisamau, Kanpur, Plaintiff respondent No. 3 brought suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent alleging that the petitioner tenant was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 320 per month from 1.7.1987 to 31.3.1989 in addition to water and drainage taxes at the rate of 18% of the rent, and the tenant failed to pay the same despite notice of demand and termination of tenancy, which was served on the tenant on 21.4.1989 by refusal. The suit was contested by the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that the rate of rent was only Rs. 180 per month inclusive of all local taxes and rent had been paid to the plaintiff landlady up to the period ending 30.6.1990 and accordingly the petitioner was not a 'defaulter' within the meaning of Section 20 (2) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It was also pleaded in the written statement that it was admitted to the tenant that plaintiff is the joint owner of the premises in question and the defendant is tenant of plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 180. It was further pleaded that petitioner has been paying rent to the plaintiff regularly at the rate of Rs. 180 per month.
(3.) The trial court decreed the plaintiff suit with the findings that rate of rent was Rs. 320 per month exclusive of taxes, that the petitioner was in arrears of rent since 1.7.1987 ; that the tenant failed to clear off the arrears of rent despite service of notice of demand and termination of tenancy ; that the notice of demand and eviction was served sufficiently by refusal on the defendant petitioner ; that the tenant made himself liable to eviction under Clause (a) of Section 20 (2) of the Act by committing default within the meaning of the said clause ; that the tenant was not entitled to protection from eviction under the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act because the required deposit as contemplated under the said provision was not made on or before the date of first hearing and that the tenant was also liable to eviction on the ground of disclaimer of title of the landlady. In the revision filed by the petitioner, the findings of the trial court have been upheld. Aggrieved, the tenant has come up before this Court through this writ petition.;