ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-tenant who is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court on revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
2. The plaintiff-landlord filed a suit against the petitioner-tenant claiming arrears of rent, damages, water tax which is claimed as under :
4. The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid suit on various grounds amongst others that the suit is barred under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act as no valid notice terminating the tenancy has been served on him and further that the tenant is not liable to pay any amount.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the defendant is liable to pay water tax apart from rent since after 15th July, 1972?
(2) Whether the defendant-tenant has committed default and whether the rent against him is due since 1st July, 1976?
(3) Whether the tenant is entitled to benefit of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972?
(4) Whether service of notice dated 3rd July, 1996 is sufficient on the defendant-tenant?
(5) Report, any.
6. The trial court after considering the material on the record has answered Issues No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 against the tenant and decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner-tenant filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional court after discussing the evidence on the record and considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner-tenant affirmed the decree passed by the trial court. Thus, this writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner tries to assail the findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court on the question of service of notice but has failed to demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court suffer from any error of law so as to warrant interference by this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Apex Court in Kailash Chandra and Anr. v. Mukundi Lal and Ors., 2003 ACJ 455, wherein the Apex Court after considering various decisions of the Apex Court has laid down guidelines with regard to deposit under Section 30 as under :
"Every clause of statute should be construed with reference to the context and the other clauses of the Act, so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes relating to the subject-matter."
9. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court has found as a fact in the language of the Apex Court :
"It is not necessary for us nor would it be appropriate to go into the details of the payments made but we find that the trial court observed that the defendant deposited Rs. 700 more than what was claimed in the plaint. A total sum of Rs. 648 was demanded in the plaint, whereas the amount deposited was Rs. 1,510. Rs. 443.50p. was demanded on account of arrears of rent for the period from 15.12.1973 to 11.1.1975, thereafter, upto 15.12.1976 a sum of Rs. 204.50 as mesne profit for use and occupation. Rent for the period 21.5.1971 to 15.12.1973, had become time-barred. There was admittedly a deposit made under Section 30(2) of the Act."
10. The facts of the case in hand are quite different. It is admitted case that after 15th July, 1972, the tenant is saddled with additional liability of paying water tax and admittedly in the present case the tenant has not paid the same.
11. In order to get benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, the tenant has to make deposit of the entire amount admitted whereas findings are recorded that the entire amount admitted to be due is not deposited. In this view of the matter in the present case, the law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply.
12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 (2) ARC 385 : (2003) 6 SCC 675, no case for interference with the order impugned in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.