JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of a suit for eviction filed by landlords respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against original tenant Chhotey Lal since deceased and survived by legal representative. Before filing suit notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was sent by the landlord to the tenant through registered post on 29.3.1979, which according to the postman was refused by the tenant on 30.3.1979. According to the landlord rent was Rs. 4.78 per month and according to the tenant it was only Rs. 3.12 per month. Landlord had complained that tenant had not paid rent since 1.1.64. Tenant denied receipt of notice and asserted that on 30.3.1979 when the notice was alleged to have been refused by him he was in Bhopal in connection with his treatment. The trial court held that notice was not refused by the tenant on the following grounds :
(i) Registered notice could not be delivered on the next day;
(ii) Tenant was away from Jhansi (where premises in dispute is situate) on 30.3.1979;
(iii) Tenant had examined the Doctor who treated him at Bhopal at the relevant time;
(iv) When tenant appeared in the suit on the first date after receiving the summons on the first attempt there was no reason for him to refuse the notice.
The trial court also held that rate of rent Rs. 3.12 as asserted by tenant and not Rs. 4.78 as asserted by the landlord. The trial court also held that valid due (Marrya) rent had been deposited by the tenant on the first date of the hearing hence he was also entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No, 13 of 1972. The suit had been registered as Suit (S.C.C. Suit) No. 196 of 97 on the file of J.S.C.C./ Munslf Court No. 1, Jhansi. The trial court by order dated 3.9.1982 dismissed the suit for eviction. Suit for recovery of rent w.e.f. 1.6.1976 was decreed. Against the said judgment and decree landlord respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed revision being S.C.C. Revision No. 240 of 84 IInd A.D.J., Jhansi, allowed the revision on 11.2.1985 hence this writ petition.
2. The revisional court disagreed with the trial court on the question of benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. In this regard. 1 find that finding of the trial court was erroneous in law and was rightly reversed by the revisional court. The trial court granted the benefit of the said provision to the tenant on the legal assumption that tenant was required to deposit only that much rent on the first date of hearing which was legally recoverable. The trial court was labouring under the misconception of law that tenant was not required to deposit time barred rent. It is settled that in order to claim the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act it is essential for the tenant to deposit even the time barred rent.
3. The revisional court reversed the finding of the trial court in respect of service of notice and held that tenant refused to accept the notice.
4. It is noteworthy that postman who made the endorsement of tenant's refusal was not examined. In my opinion revisional court interfered in finding of fact recorded by the trial court regarding service of notice. The trial court had recorded a finding of fact on the basis of evidence available on record. The revisional court after re-appreciation of evidence held otherwise. In para 5 revisional court observed that "finding of the learned trial court that the defendant did not refuse to accept the notice is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record". In same paragraph after few lines revisional court observed that "learned trial court did not consider the evidence of these two witnesses in proper perspective". The revisional court in fact interfered in finding of fact and recorded its own findings as if it was hearing first appeal. While hearing a revision under Section 25, P.S.C.C. Act, Court cannot reverse finding of fact recorded by the J.S.C.C./trial court.
5. Accordingly judgment and order passed by the revisional court is set aside. Writ petition is allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court is restored.
6. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J., 2004 (1) AWC 851 : 2004 (2) ARC 64, that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to reasonable extent. In the said authority I placed reliance upon Supreme Court authority of S. F. Products v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, . First three sentences of para 11 of the said Supreme Court authority are quoted below :
"It is well-settled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court being extraordinaiy, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play."
7. Accordingly, even though relief against eviction is being granted to the tenant, through this judgment, not on the basis of any provision of Rent Control Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) but on the ground of non-service of notice of termination of tenancy, still in order to do complete and substantial justice writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.
8. Rent of about Rs. 3 or 5 per month is shockingly inadequate, virtually it is no rent.
9. Accordingly it is directed that w.e.f. May, 2005, onward tenant petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord respondent at the rate of Rs. 500 per month.