- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. J. S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 1981 was filed by Narsingh Das Agarwal (Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3) against Krishna Nand Vishwakarma (Defendant-Petitioner) claiming inter alia, amongst others, that said plaintiff was owner and landlord of a residential accommodation, (described in the plaint of said suit filed as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit) wherein Defendant-Petitioner was tenant at the rate of Rs. 121- per month. The Defendant having committed default in payment of rent for more than four months, notice under Section 106, Trans fer of Property Act (for short called TPA) was sent, which was, admittedly, received by the Defendant-Petitioner on November 3,1980. Copies of the notice under Section 106, TPA sent by plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 and the reply given by the Defendant-Petitioner against the same have been an nexed as Annexure R. A1 and R. A. 2 to the Rejoinder Affidavit. Annexure R. A. 2 is dated December 17,1980, which is doubt ful in view of the averments contained in paragraph 7 of the plaint (Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit) wherein it is men tioned that plaintiff received reply against notice under Section 106, TPA on Decem-ber2,1980 2. The Defendant-tenant contested the said suit by filing written statement (Annexure 2 to the counter- affidavit) and it was admitted that notice under Section 106 TPA was received on November 3, 1980, rent was being paid, but receipts, in lieu thereof, were not issued by the landlord and sometimes landlord refused to receive rent without lawful excuse and that being constrained Defendant had deposited rent by filing an application under Section 30, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short 'the Act' which was registered as Rent Case No. 176 of 1980 in the Court of Munsif, Ballia. The Defendant-tenant fur ther claimed that rent was being deposited under Section 30 of the Act. The Defen dant-tenant claimed that certain receipts were issued, some of which were with him while some were lost. The Defendant-tenant also claimed in paragraph 6 of the written statement that he has filed an ap plication under Section 20 (4) of the Act and entitled to immunity from ejectment under Section 20 (4) of the Act. 3. There were two innings before the Court of Judge Small Causes before the matter came up before this Court in Present Writ Petition. Initially, Judge mall Causes Court vide judgment and order dated April 24,1981 held that defen dant-tenant was entitled to the benefit of deposits under Section 30 of the Act, Plaintiff was not entitled to the decree for eviction against the tenant, but only en titled to the entire amount deposited by the Defendant both in that Court as well as under Section 30 of the Act. A true copy of the said judgment and order dated April 24,1981 has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the Counter-Affidavit. 4. A true copy of the application under Section 20 (4) of the Act filed by Defendant has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the Counter- Affidavit. Perusal of the said application shows that Defendant claimed benefit of deposits made before and after receipt of notice under Section 106, TPA on the ground that unless Plain tiff expressed his willingness in writing by giving notice after receiving Defendant's reply against Notice under Section 106, TPA, Defendant was justified in deposit ing rent under Section 30 of the Act and such deposits were valid deposits which could not be ignored while considering application under Section 20 (4) of the Act. Stand taken by the Defendant as men tioned above is borne out from Ground No. 7 contained in memorandum of Revision No. 11 of 1982-Copy of which has been produced by petitioner during course of arguments. Petitioner filed ob jections against the said application. A true copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the Counter-Affidavit. 5. The plaintiff being aggrieved filed SCC Revision No. 28 of 1981 under Sec tion 25, Provincial Small Causes Court Act against judgment and order dated April 24. 1981 referred to above. The Revisional Court allowed the revision and remanded the case back for fresh decision by means of judgment and order dated September 5, 1981 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition ). 6. Case having been received on remand, as indicated above, the Judge Small Causes Court by means of the im pugned judgment and order dated March 02. 1982 (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) held that the deposits made by Defendant under Section 30 of the Act after receipt of demand notice under Section 106, TPA were not valid and taken into account under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The trial Court observed, that Defendant admitted that he had received demand notice and thereafter he made deposits under Section 30 of the Act. Such deposits, according to the trial Court, could not be said to be valid deposits and consequently Defendant could not claim any benefit of such deposit under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The trial Court also referred to the remand order (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) and sup ported his conclusion on the basis of the said judgment dated Septembers, 1981. 7. The Defendant-Petitioner feeling aggrieved after J. S. C. C. Revision No. 11 of 1982 and said revision has been dismissed by Respondent No. 1 vide judgment and order dated October 14,1982 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition ). 8. The Revisional Court has, in its impugned judgment, observed that only point pressed before it was that the finding contained in the order of remand dated September 5, 1981 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) could not be said to be binding on the Courts below while matter was decided by them afresh. The Revisional Court, however, accepted the contention of the plaintiff, relying upon two decisions e. g. , Banaras Education Society Junior High School v. V Additional District Judge, 1980 UPRCC 360, and-Jasraj Indersingh v. Hemraj Multanchand, AIR 1977 SC 1011. 9. The Revisional Court proceeded on the basis that the judgment and order dated' September 5, 1981 (Annexure-1) rendered by the District Judge, Ballia had already determined the issue by holding that the deposits made by Defendant after receiving notice under Section 106, TPA were not valid deposits. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the outset it maybe stated that the tenant-petitioner has challenged all the three orders, i. e. , order of remand dated September 5, 1981 (Annexure-1), March 2, 1982 passed by Judge Small Causes Court (Respondent No. 2) in compliance to the order (Annexure-2) and the revisional order passed by respondent No. 1 dated October 14, 1983 (Annexure-3) and has prayed that all the said orders be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari. Para graph 20 of the Writ Petition contains legal grounds. Ordfcr of remand dated Septem ber 5, 1981 Cjinexure-1) has been chal lenged on merits on Ground Nos. I, II and III. Ground Nos. IV and V seek to chal lenge the correctness of the impugned judgment dated March 2, 1981 and Oc tober 14,1982 (Annexures 2 and 3 ). 11. Perusal of the remand order dated September 5, 1981 shows that District Judge while passing the said order met none of the arguments made on behalf of the plaintiff and thereafter, without recording reasons, jumped over to the con clusion. The said order of remand is, thus, a non-speaking order and one cannot find out as to how the said Court reached to the conclusion. The said order is cryptic and after noting arguments it contains opera tive portion. It cannot be ascertained as to what was the basis for the said Court to hold that deposits made under Section 30 of the Act after receipt of demand notice by the Defendant were not valid. 12. Defendant-Petitioner submits that deposits made under Section 30 of the Act, even after receiving notice under Sec tion 106, TPA, have to be taken into ac count as valid deposits and the same could not be ignored unless Plaintiff-Respon dent No. 3 signified his willingness to ac cept rent directly in view of the reply sent by the Defendant. Petitioner submits that deposits under Section 30 of the Act cannot be ignored. Petitioner places reliance on fol lowing decisions- 1. Hemraj v. Smt. Maheshwari Devi, 1979 (UP) RCC 141 (Paragraphs 13 and 14 ).
(2.) MUKUT Behari Seth and others v, IInd Additional District Judge, Kheri,1989 ARC 283. Kamleshwar Singh Srivastava v. IVth Additional District Judge and others, 1987 (1) ARC 1 (SC ). Sobaran Singh v. Prakash Chandra Gupta, 1996 (28) ALR 542.
(3.) MAHENDRA Nath Tandon v. VIth Ad ditional District Judge and others, 1997 (30) ALR 22: 1997 (1) ARC 140 (Paragraph 20 ). Krishna Manohar Dhawan v. VII Additional District Judge and others, 1983 ARC823.;