Court No. - 52
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 134 of 2019 Revisionist :- Havib Opposite Party :- Jahid Counsel for Revisionist :- Rahul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kuldeep Kumar
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the revisionist is assailing the judgment and order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Bulandshahr in Small Causes Case No. 02 of 2017. The aforesaid case was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent of the premises in question. He submitted that finding of the court below is perverse and the case pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent has been accepted by the court below by his own finding, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is bad in law.
Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in all eventuality, it is admitted position that the revisionist-defendant was defaulter in payment of rent of the premises in question. He next submitted that there is clear cut finding of the court below that Misc. Case No. 54 of 2017 for payment of rent of the premises in question was instituted after issuance of notice dated 30.11.2016 and further in paragraph 30 of the written statement filed by the revisionist-defendant, this fact is very well admitted that rent was due from March, 2015 to December, 2016, which was deposited by revisionist-defendant by money order of Rs. 4400/- which clearly shows that up to December, 2016 he has not paid any rent and only after issuance of notice dated 30.11.2016 he has sent money order and instituted Misc. Case No. 54 of 2017 to deposit the rent.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is clear that there is no dispute on the point that the revisionist-defendant was defaulter in payment of rent and he himself admitted that he has paid rent from March, 2015 and December, 2016 through money order of Rs. 4400/- and in light of judgment in the case of Gokaran Singh Vs. A.D.J., 2000 (1) ARC, 653 relied upon by the court below, deposit of rent after receiving of notice is not permissible and any such deposit, if made, will not be of any benefit of the tenant. The tenant will have to be treated defaulter in payment of rent for the period subsequent to the receipt of notice given by the landlord. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019/Rmk.