JUDGMENT Dev Kant Trivedi, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th May, 1981 passed by the then IVth Addl. District Judge. Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No. 8 of 1980, in exercise of the powers of Judge.
Small Causes Court.
2. It appears that the revisionist was a tenant of the ground floor portion of a house situate at 2 Sarvpalli, Mall Avenue, Lucknow. The landlord-opposite party filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of default In making payment of rent and he also prayed for the amount of outstanding rent, water tax, drainage tax and damages for use and occupation. The revisionist claimed that he was not under an obligation to pay the water and drainage taxes and that he had offered the rent in the month of November, 1979 which was refused by the landlord, that the revisionist claimed that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 2.240 as house tax which he was entitled to adjust, and that he was also entitled to the benefit of Section 20 sub-section (4) and he had made compliance thereof by depositing the rent and costs. He also claimed that no notice was served on him.
3. Both the parties adduced evidence oral and documentary. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that the notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served on the defendant who failed to pay the arrears of rent. The trial court also came to the conclusion that full compliance of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not made. and. therefore, the tenant was not entitled to the protection of the said section. The learned trial court also came to the conclusion that the tenant was liable to pay the water tax. The suit was, therefore, decreed for ejectment and also for recovery of arrears of rent, water tax and damages including the pendente lite and future damages.
4. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and decree, the present revision has been preferred.
5. The first point for consideration in the present case is whether the notice was served on the revisionist. The plain tiff-landlord filed a carbon copy of the notice. He also filed a postal receipt showing that the notice was sent by registered post to the revisionist-tenant. He also filed the A. D. receipt and has stated on oath that this receipt dated 29th October. 1979 bears the signatures of the revisionist. There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the plaintiff-landlord. The bald statement of the defendant that he did not receive the notice, seems to have been rightly rejected by the learned trial court. The findings of the learned trial court that the revisionist was served with the notice cannot, therefore, be disturbed.
6. The next point for consideration in the present revision is whether the defendant was liable to pay the water tax or not. In view of the provisions of Section 7 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, a tenant is liable to pay water tax as a part of the rent unless there is an agreement to the contrary. In the present case, the defendant-tenant failed to produce any agreement in writing which could have absolved him from the liability to pay water tax. An effort was made by the tenant to summon the original rent note from the landlord, but since the landlord denied the execution of any rent note, the same could not be produced by the landlord-opposite party. The learned trial court rightly rejected the contention of the defendant-tenant that he was not liable to pay water tax. There seems to be no reason whatsoever to dislodge the said finding. The next question for consideration is whether the defendant-tenant committed the default in payment of rent. The learned trial court has come to the conclusion that the defendant-tenant did not offer and pay the outstanding amount. Since the defendant did not pay the rent within the time stipulated in the notice, there was default in paying the rent. The learned trial court has rightly rejected the statement of the defendant-ten ant and has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendant-tenant committed default and made himself liable for ejectment. There seems to be no justification whatsoever to Interfere with the said finding.
7. The last point for consideration in the present case is whether the defendant-revisionist was entitled to the protection of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No, XIII of 1972. The learned trial court has considered the matter in some detail and came to the conclusion that the defendant did not deposit the total amount which could have relieved him from the liability of the ejectment. The learned trial court has come to the conclusion that the amount deposited by the tenant fell short of the amount which was required to be deposited and there seems to be no error in the calculations made by the learned trial court.
8. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the learned IVth Addl. District Judge committed no error whatsoever in decreeing the suit. The revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is accordingly dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court are affirmed.