Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and orders dated 28.1.2010 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court in S.C.C. Suit No. 24 of 2001 and order 29.7.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3 in S.C.C. Revision No. 6 of 2010, appended as Annexures-15 & 18 respectively to the writ petition.
The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed S.C.S. Suit No. 24 of 2001: Smt. Sarla Devi Vs. Maqsood in the court of Judge Small Causes/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kairana, inter alia stating therein that the petitioner/tenant has not deposited rent and taxes since 31.1.1989 and pursuant thereto his tenancy was terminated by notice dated 17.4.2001. The respondent prayed for eviction of the tenant for the accommodation in dispute.
The suit was contested by the tenant-petitioner by filing written statement. An amendment application to amend the written statement was also filed by the petitioner which was allowed by the court. Thereafter, he filed additional written statement on 30.5.2005 to the amendment application which was replied by the respondent-landlord. Subsequently, the suit was decreed by the court below on 28.1.2010 holding that the petitioner to be in arrears of rent is liable to be evicted. The petitioner preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 6 of 2010 before the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar challenging the aforesaid order dated 28.1.2010 which too was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 29.7.2010. These orders of the courts below are impugned in the writ petition.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since he had deposited whole of the amount of rent due against him under section 30 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 hence, he is entitled to get benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. He further submits that since the landlord has refused to accept the rent it was sent through money order which too was also refused by him.
The counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner had not offered the rent to him and the money order was sent in the name of another person, hence it cannot be said the rent was tendered to the landlord. As regards, payment of rent in court under section 30 of the Act is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner had deposited arrears of rent in his own name and not in the name of the landlord, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner has complied in letter and spirit with the provision of the Act and is entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act.
The trial court framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties for adjudication of the controversy:
^^i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij bl y?kq okn ds fuLrkj.k gsrq fuEufyf[kr vo/kk;Z fcUnq l`ftr fd;s tkrs gSaA 1- D;k izfroknh }kjk fdjk;k vnk djus esa pwd dh x;h gS\ 2- D;k izfroknh /kkjk 30 ;w0ih0 ,DV 13 lu~ 1972 ds vUrxZr fofo/k okn la[;k [email protected] esa tek dh x;h /kujkf'k dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- D;k izfroknh /kkjk 20 ¼4½ ;w0ih0 ,DV [email protected] ds izkfo/kkuksa dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4= okfnuh vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkfj.kh gS\** The trial court after considering the documentary and oral evidence on record decided issued nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the landlord holding that petitioner had sent money order in the name of a wrong person and that there was considerable short fall in the amount of rent sent by him. The trial court further held that petitioner had neither offered the rent to the landlord nor it was deposited in the name of the landlord in Misc. Case No. 34 of 1989: Maksood Vs. Amarnath and in fact the petitioner had deposited the rent in his own name which was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act for granting him benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act.
The finding of the trial court in this regard is as under:
^^bl ekeys esa mHk;i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr vfHkopuksa ,d rdksZ ls i=koyh ij ;g fl) gS fd iz'uxr lEifRr ij /kkjk 30 ;w0ih0 ,DV 13 lu~ 1972 ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSa rFkk izfroknh oknh dh vksj ls 80 @ :0 ekgokj dk fdjk,nkj pyk vkrk gS i=koyh ij ;g Hkh fl) gS fd izfroknh }kjk okfnuh dks fn0 1-2-89 ls fdjk, dh /kujkf'k vnk ugha dh x;h gSA okfnuh dh vksj ls fdjk, dh ekax ,oa fdjk,nkjh lekIr djrs gq, izfroknh dks fn;k x;k uksfVl fnukafdr 17-4-01 izfroknh dks izkIr gks tkuk Hkh i=koyh ij fl) gS i=koyh ij ;g Hkh fl) gS fd uksfVl dh rkehy ds mijkar okn izLrqr djus rd izfroknh }kjk uksfVl esa ekaxh x;h fdjk, vkfn dh /kujkf'k okfnuh dks vnk ugha dh x;h gSA bl ekeys esa okfnuh ds }kjk iszf"kr uksfVl fnukafdr 17-4-01 izkIr gksus ds ckn izfroknh }kjk uksfVl dk tokc fn0 22-5-01 dks izsf"kr fd;k x;k rFkk dksbZ fdjk, dh /kujkf'k vkfn izfroknh dh vksj ls fdjk, dh /kujkf'k dk o.kZu fd;k x;k gSA okn esa fn0 11-7-01 dks okn nk;j gksus ds mijkar fnukad 13-8-01 dks ,d vfrfjDr tokc uksfVl izfroknh dh vksj ls okfnuh dks izsf"kr djus dk rF; vafdr fd;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa izfroknh dh vksj ls i=koyh ij jftLVMZ jlhn 72 [email protected] o euhvkMZj dwiu [email protected] izLrqr fd;s x;s gSaA mijksDr /kujkf'k uksfVl esa ekaxh x;h /kujkf'k ls vR;f/kd de /kujkf'k gS] lkFk gh ;g /kujkf'k okn nk;j gksus ds mijkar izfroknh ds }kjk Vs.Mj dh x;h gSa bl /kujkf'k dk dksbZ ykHk izfroknh bl okn esa izkir djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA tgka rd fofo/k okn la[;k [email protected]] edlwn cuke vejukFk esa tek f;s x;s fdjk;s dk iz'u gS Lo;a izfroknh }kjk ;g Lohdkj dj fy;k x;k gS fd ;g /kujkf'k mlds vf/koDrk dh xyrh ls okfnuh ds ifr vejukFk dks Hkw Lokeh ekurs gq, tek dh x;h gSA ;g rf; i=koyh ij fl) gS fd ;g /kujkf'k okfnuh Hkw&Lokfeuh dks izkIr ugha gqbZ gS rFkk izfroknh }kjk =qfViw.kZ ls /kujkf'k tek dh x;h gSA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd izfroknh dh vksj ls mijksDr fofo/k okn la[;k [email protected] ls lEcfU/kr dksbZ izys[k vkfn bl i=koyh ij U;k;ky; ds voyksdu gasrq izzLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA okfnuh }kjk izsf"kr uksfVl dh rkehy izfroknh ij - - -gksus ds mijkar lgh rF; mldh tkudkjh esa vkus ij izfroknh dk ;g drZO; Fkk fd og okfnuh dks ns; fdjk, dh /kujkf'k uksfVl dh izkfIr ls okn nk;j djus ls iwoZ rd okfnuh dks vnk djrk ,oa mls Vs.Mj djrk rc izfroknh dks fdjk;k vnk djus esa pwd djrk ugha ekuk tk ldrk FkkA ijUrq bl ekeys esa izfroknh }kjk lgh rF; tkudkjh esa vkus ds mijkar Hkh cdk;k fdjk, dh /kujkf'k okfnuh dks fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa u rks vnk dh vkSj u gh Vs.Mj dh] D;ksafd izfroknh }kjk cdk;k fdjk, dh /kujkf'k okfnuh dks le; lhek esa vnk ugha dh x;h gS] tcfd fdjk;k xyr dsl esa tek gksus dk rF; izfroknh ds Kku esa vk pqdk Fkk rc izfroknh fofo/k okn la[;k [email protected] esa =qfViw.kZ O;fDr ds uke tek /kujkf'k dk dksbZ ykHk izkIr ugha dj ldrk gSA ;gh er ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk fof/k O;oLFkk%& iwju flag ,oa vU; cuke ,fM'ku fMfLVd tt @ Lis'ky tt yfyriqj ,oa vU;] 2009] ¼76½ ,0,y0vkj0 325 , esa iznku fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij vo/kk;Z fcUnq la[;k&1 ldkjkRed :i ls o 2 udkjkRed :i ls fu.khZr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] fu.khZr fd;s tkrs gSaA** As regards issue no. 3 is concerned, the court has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the suit was filed on 11.7.2001 and the petitioner had filed his written statement in the aforesaid suit on 12.8.2002; that the petitioner having deposited rent under section 30 of the Act on 19.4.2004, he is not entitled to get benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act for the reasons that the rent has neither been deposited on the first date of hearing nor it rent was deposited in the name of the landlord.
As regards, issued no. 4 is concerned, the court below held that petitioner-tenant defaulted in payment of rent and the landlord could not take the benefit of rent deposited by the petitioner in his own name. Hence, for this reason also the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act.
By the impugned order dated 28.1.2010, the court below ordered the petitioner to vacate the shop in question and handover the same to the landlord within a period of one month and to pay a sum of Rs.2,759/- as arrears of rent with effect from 11.7.1998 to 24.5.2001. Apart from above, the petitioner had also been directed to pay damages @ Rs.80/- per month with effect from 25.5.2001 and the amount which has been deposited by the petitioner in the court would be adjusted further.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is apparent that the findings recorded by the court below quoted above are in accordance with law. The courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent having not deposited the arrears of rent due on the first date of hearing hence having not complied with the provision of Section 30 (4) of the Act in letter and spirit he is not entitled to get benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act. The trial court has also recorded a categorical finding of fact that even after coming to know about the mistake that petitioner has deposited the amount of arrears of rent in his own name, he did not take any steps to rectify the same, therefore in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Pooran Singh & others vs. Addl. District Judge, Lalitpur reported in 2009 (76) ALR 325, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act.
In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below against the petitioner regarding dis-entitlement of petitioner to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, are not warranted for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dated: 29.10.2010 RCT/-