- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. This is the tenant's writ petition against the order dated 7-4-1993 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition, passed by Xth Addl. District Judge, Meerut) allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 2 (Smt. Pushpa Devi, W/o Sri Chaudhary Phool Chand), for eviction and the recovery of three years of rent.
(2.) PLAINTIFF-respondent No. 2 is landlady of the premises in dispute, which is a residential accommodation. Accord ing to her the petitioner is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 100 per month. This is disputed by the tenant-petitioner. According to the petitioner the rent is Rs. 40 per month only. The landlady gave notice dated 9-3-1987 terminating the tenancy of the tenant and claiming arrears of rent from 1-1-1982. Subsequently she filed a suit for the evic tion and arrears of rent before the respon dent No. 1 (Xth Addl. District Judge, Meerut ). This suit was numbered as S. CC. No. 99 of 1989; Pushpa Deviv. Vimla Devi. In this suit the tenant filed a written state ment and also deposited Rs. 3,000 as rent. Subsequently in this suit an issue was framed whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit or not? Xth A. D. J. by his order dated 20-7-1990 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) has held that it has no juris diction to try the suit. It directed the return of the plaint for the presentation before the proper Court. The landlady did not take the plaint back. Subsequently on the same notice she filed another suit which was numbered as 151 of 1990; Smt. Pushpa Devi v. Smt. Vimla Devi. In this suit defen dant again filed a written statement and deposited an amount of Rs. 1,570. Accord ing to defendant he was not in arrears of rent. He has paid entire rent till 1-4-1989 and the suit cannot be decreed. He further submitted that according to him in order to safeguard his interest he has deposited extra amount of Rs. 1,570 alongwith Rs. 3,000 deposited in the earlier suit S. CC. No. 99 of 1989; Pushpa Devi v. Smt. Vimla Devi, will cover the entire amount con templated under Section 20 (4) even if the rent is taken to be due from 1 -1 -1982. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record have given finding that rate of rent is not Rs. 100 per month as alleged by the landlady but is Rs. 40 per month as alleged by the tenant. The trial Court has also given finding of fact that entire rent up to 1-4-1989 was paid and the rent after 1-4-1989 has been deposited by the tenant before the Court. This finding has been given by the trial Court after considering the statement given by PW-1. (Sri Sita ram) The trial Court (Addl. Dist. Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut) by his order dated 22-7-1992 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this order, the landlady filed a revision. The Revisional Court has upheld the finding of the trial Court regarding the rate of rent, but as far as second question is concerned, there is no specific finding given by the revisional Court that from what date the rate of rent is due and yet the revisional Court has decreed the suit for eviction and for rent of three years. The Judge, Small Causes Court had held that the entire rent till 1-4-1989 was already paid. This was find ing of the fact. There was no illegality in the same. This finding not be interfered by the respondent No. 1 in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The judgment given by the respon dent No. 1 is liable to be set aside.
(3.) IN view of the finding given by the trial Court the entire rent of amount till 1-4-1989 has already been paid to the landlady. The tenant is not liable for evic tion, but the trial Court should have decreed the suit for the arrears of rent from 1-4-1989 which was also deposited. The judgment of the revisional Court dated 7-4-1993 is quashed. The result is that the decree for the eviction of the tenant is set aside. The landlady would be entitled to a decree of rent from l-4-1989onwards. The writ petition allowed with costs. Petition allowed. .;