ORDER Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard earned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that one Ramesh Chand was the original landlord who died on 20.11.1998. He had let out the disputed shop to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 175 including taxes, which was later on enhanced to Rs. 300 and thereafter to Rs. 400 including taxes.
3. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are proforma respondents as they are not claiming any right of ownership/land-lordship with respect to the disputed shop. It is because of their impleadment as proforma defendants in the suit that they are impleaded as respondents No. 2 to 6 in this writ petition. After the death of Ramesh Chand, his heirs/respondents gave notice dated 27.12.1999 to the petitioner stating that Suresh Kumar, respondent No. 1, is the lone landlord of the disputed shop and rent from 1.4.1998 to 26.12.1999 was due against the petitioner which he had not paid despite demand making him liable for eviction from the disputed shop. The petitioner gave his reply dated 22.2.2000 to the aforesaid notice asserting that the entire rent was sent to the deceased Ramesh Chand which he refused to accept and after his death all his heirs started demanding rent from him separately, hence the petitioner was compelled to deposit the rent up to 31.12.1999 in Misc. Case No. 57 of 1999 in the Court of Civil Judge under Section 30(2) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
4. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed Suit No. 8 of 2000 on 6.3.2000 claiming that the petitioner was tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 400 per month besides taxes which he had not paid from 1.4.1998 to 26.12.1999. The petitioner also moved an application dated 28.3.2000 alleging that he was depositing the entire rent claimed alongwith costs, interest etc. amounting to Rs. 12,570.50p. The petitioner also filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations. Respondent No. 1 filed his objection. The petitioner again deposited rent from 1.4.2000 to 30.4.2000 by tender.
5. The trial court decreed the suit vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2000 against which the petitioner filed Revision No. 50 of 2000 before the District Judge, Bijnor. The District Judge rejected the revision vide impugned order dated 19.2.2001, hence this writ petition.
6. The trial court while decreeing the suit and dismissing the claim of the tenant has held that 28.3.2000 was the first date of hearing by which date the tenant had not deposited the entire arrears of rent as required under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972). From the aforesaid facts it appears that the suit was filed on 6.3.2000.
7. The earned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the decree of the suit the tenant has not deposited a single penny.
8. In view of Section 30 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the tenant has to deposit the entire outstanding rent even during the pendency of the writ petition. There is specific averment in para 13A of the counter-affidavit that the tenant has not deposited the damages for use and occupation w.e.f. 1.2.2001.
9. This fact has not been rebutted by the petitioner in his rejoinder-affidavit, hence the averments made in the counter-affidavit have to be taken as admitted and correct.
10. In this view of the matter, the tenant is not entitled to continue in possession of the shop in dispute under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as he has not complied with the order in letter and spirit.
11. For the reasons stated above, no interference with the impugned order is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.