- (1.) BHAGWAN Din, J. This is a tenant's petition for quashing the order dated 14-10-1998 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut decreeing the suit of the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment and for damages for use and occupation of the premises for the period from 21-10-1995 to 30-11-1995, and the order dated 27-1-1999 passed by XIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut in S. C. C. Revision No. 543 of 1998.
(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant of the House No. 41-42/165, Dharmpuri, Sadar, Meerut at the monthly rent of Ps. 25 of which the Respondent No. 3, is the landlord. Earlier to the Respondent No. 3, his father, Gyan Chandra Garg was the landlord of the premises in dispute. In the year 1985, Gyan Chandra Garg refused to accept the rent from the petitioner. He, therefore, moved an application under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. U/ban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 13 of 1972) in the Court of Munsiff, Meerut for permission to deposit the rent in the Court. THE landlord in response to the notice served on him, ap peared in the Court and expressed his will ingness to accept the rent. On this the Munsiff City passed an order on 9-10-1987 directing the petitioner to pay rent directly to the landlord. After some time, Gyan Chandra Garg again refused to accept the rent from the petitioner. THErefore, the latter filed a fresh application under Sec tion 30 (1) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. THE Munsiff City by his order dated 5-8-1988 allowed the application and permitted the tenant to deposit the rent in the Court. THErefrom the tenant has been deposit ing the rent regularly in the Court. THE previous landlord Gyan Chandra Garg died on 24-2-1990 leaving behind several heirs and legal representatives including the Respondent No. 3. But by virtue of the Will executed by Gyan Chandra Garg in his life time, the Respondent No. 3 became sole landlord of the premises in dispute. On 20-9-1995 he served a composite notice informing the petitioner that Gyan Chandra Garg, who had died on 24-2-1990, had bequeathed the premises in question exclusively in his favour and, therefore, he is alone the landlord. By means of this notice he also terminated the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent from October, 1985 till the date of notice, demanded the arrears of rent and vacant possession of the premises within 30 days. THE petitioner sent reply to the notice communicating the Respon dent No. 3 that he could know for first time on receipt of this notice dated 20-9-1990, that his father had expired on 24-2-1990 and that he has become the exclusive owner and landlord of the premises in question by virtue of a Will executed by his late father, that he has been depositing the rent from 1-8-1986 regularly in the Court of Munsiff City, Mcerut in case No. 13 of 1987, Panna Lal v. Cyan Chandra Garg, and as per details of deposits given in reply, he is not the defaulter and liable to be evicted. On expiry of the period of notice, the Respondent No. 3 filed a suit R. E. No. 268 of 1995 before the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut for recovery of the arrears of rent from 1-12-1992 to 28-10-1995 relinquishing claim of rent from October, 1985 to 30th November, 1992 and eviction of the petitioner and for damages for use and occupation after ser vice of the notice. THE petitioner contested the suit. In his written statement, he denied the assertions made in the plaint and pleaded that he had already deposited the rent in the Court according to the rules well within the knowledge of the plaintiff's lather, that in response to the notice served by the plaintiff on him he had in formed him about the deposits giving details thereof and thus, he is not defaulter and liable to be evicted. The Judge, Small Causes Court rejected the plea of the petitioner and decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction alongwith damages for use and occupation considering that the deposits made by the defendant in the Court arc not according to rules and, therefore, are invalid. Aggrieved of the judgment and order of the Judge, Small Causes Court the defendant-petitioner filed J. S. C. C. Revision No. 543 of 1998 but could not get favour of the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court upheld the judgment and order of the trial Court with the observation that the revisionist/ petitioner deposited the rent under Sec tion 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972 without complying with the provisions of Rule (5) of the rules framed under Act 13 of 1972. He held that since the deposits under Sec tion 30 of the Act of 1972 are invalid there fore, he is not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act 13 of 1972 and also that on receipt of the notice from the opposite party he has not deposited the entire rent due within a month or even on the first date of hearing, he is therefore, defaulter and liable to be evicted. The petitioner, has, therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 14-10-1998 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court and the judgment and order dated 27-11-1999 passed by the XIIIth Additional Dis trict Judge and also for an order or direc tion which the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(3.) THIS petition is placed before me for admission on the nomination by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice. Shri P. K. Jain put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent No. 3. By the consent of the parties' Counsel, the petition is heard finally at the admission stage. The petitioner does not contend that alter the death of earlier landlord, Gyan Chandra Garg, the Respondent No. 3 has become the landlord of the premises in question. However, it is asserted by him that he could not know about the death of Gyan Chandra Garg till date he received the notice from the Respondent No. 3. Therefore, he continued to deposit the rent in the name of Gyan Chandra Garg and that he deposited the rent ever since up to 31-12-1995. Therefore, he was not defaulter on the date of service of the notice of termination of tenancy. He has further asserted that neither the earlier landlord nor thereafter the Respondent No. 3 expressed willingness to accept the rent directly from the petitioner. There fore, on account of the deposits made by him under Section 31 (1) under the order of the Court and also that in reply to the notice he has furnished the details of the deposits made in the Court, he is entitled to the protection of the provisions of Sec tion 20 (4) of the Act and therefore, is not liable to be ejected.;