J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. Heard Shri C.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and Shri Sanktha Rai appearing for respondent No. 3. This is tenant's writ petition.
(2.) Respondent-landlady filed suit for recovery of rent and ejectment against Vishwanath Prasad (since deceased) on the ground that the disputed property was in the tenancy of the said Vishwanath Prasad and he committed default in payment of rent Vishwanath Prasad alone was inducted as tenant in the shop in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 120 and he started paying rent of Bhagwati Prasad, the husband of the landlady. Bhagwati Prasad was himself a tenant in the shop in question which was subsequently purchased by his wife from the erstwhile owner on 21.4.1972 and thereafter Vishwanath Prasad started paying rent to the plaintiff and accepted her as his landlady. The defence of the tenant was that after when he was inducted as tenant, a partnership firm in the name of Shree Chand and Brothers was constituted which carried on business in the shop in question and rent was being paid by the said Firm to the landlady with her knowledge and therefore, suit was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as other partners of the Firm have not been sued. It was further pleaded that the tenant was entitled to be relieved from eviction on account of rent etc. having been deposited under Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Some other issues were also raised before the Courts below but it is not necessary to mention them as no arguments have been advanced in respect of the findings recorded by the Courts below on those issues. The plaintiffs suit was decreed by the trial Court and the revision filed against the said decree has also been dismissed by the impugned order.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly argued that against the order striking of tenant's defence writ petition was filed before this Court wherein it was held by this Court that the date of first hearing was 8.12.1981. However, the Courts below in the present case proceeded to deny to the petitioner benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act on the basis that 20.7.1978 was the date of first hearing. Assuming for the sake of arguments that 18.12.1981 was the date of first hearing, it will still be found that the amount deposited up to that date by the tenant was far too short of the amount which ought to have been deposited under the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act. In this view of the matter the petitioner was not entitled to avail the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act even on the basis if 18.12.1981 is treated to be the date of first hearing.;