JUDGMENT Rakesh Sharma, J.
1. Heard Sri B.K. Saxena, earned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohammad Arif Khan, earned Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 11.
2. The petitioner has assailed the Judgment and order dated 17.4.1993, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, decreeing the suit of the respondents for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner-tenant and the Judgment and order dated 27.5.1998, passed by the revislonal court, XVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, dismissing the revision of the petitioner.
3. It emerges from record that the petitioner was inducted as tenant at a meagre rent of Rs. 4 or 5 per month for one room with some open space in House No. 405/2, Mohalla Chaupatia Road, Sarain Mali Khan, bearing Municipal No. 439/22 Hardot Road, Lucknow, by the erstwhile landlords Sri Shivendra Pratap Singh, etc. The property was later on sold to the respondents 3 to 11. The landlord Mohammad Iqram alongwith his two sons filed S.C.C. Suit No. 493 of 1985 against the tenant in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow, seeking decree for arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and ejectment from the premises. It was pleaded in the suit that the tenant did not pay the rent from the month of May, 1981. On demand of rent by the landlord, the tenant petitioner informed that a sum of Rs. 150 was deposited under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in the Court. However, despite this, a registered A.D. notice dated 27.5.1985 was served on the tenant requiring him to pay entire rent with effect from 1.5.1981. Earlier also, the present landlord alongwith Sri Shivendra Pratap Singh had served a notice dated 31.7.1981 on the tenant demanding the rent from 1.4.1980, and as such the tenancy was determined. The landlord did not refer to the previous notice sent to the tenant.
4. A written statement was filed indicating therein that the rent was offered to the landlord and on his refusal to accept it. the same was deposited under Section 30(1) of the Act. The rent was sent by money-order also. The petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court as in Pasupati Singh v. 1st Additional District Judge, Ballia and Ors. 1981 ARC 222, In support of his submission that the rent sent by the money order was a valid tender. As per earned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant, the landlords neither appeared before the court below, nor did they inform the tenant about their willingness to accept the rent from the petitioner. This rent was deposited in Civil Misc. Case No. 225 of 1981 and as such no amount was due. The tenant was justified in depositing the rent under Section 30(1) of the Act. The petitioner-tenant had led both documentary and oral evidence in support of his submission before the trial court. The details of the documents filed before the lower court have been indicated in para 4 of the writ petition. As per petitioner, the learned trial court under misconception has allowed the suit, refused to treat the deposit of rent made by him in the Court under Section 30, Sub-section (1) of the Act on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Being aggrieved of the judgment, a S.C.C. Revision No. 214 of 1993 was filed by the tenant, which was dismissed on 22.5.1998. This order has been assailed on several grounds by the petitioner-tenant. Sri B.K. Saxena, earned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has submitted that the learned courts below have committed manifest error of law in failing to appreciate that the petitioner had deposited the rent after having tendered the same to the landlord who had refused to accept the same. The courts below ought to have appreciated the act of the tenant in depositing the rent in the Court. The trial court has wrongly held that the deposit of rent was not in accordance with law and prescribed procedure. The judgments passed by the learned courts below are in conflict with the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court as in Kameshwar Singh v. Vlth Additional District Judge, Lucknow 1987 (1) ARC 1 : 1987 (1) AWC 91 (SC).
5. Sri M.A. Khan, earned Counsel for the respondent landlords has resisted the writ petition. He has submitted that the present respondents had purchased this property from one Sri Shivendra Pratap Singh through registered sale deed on 30.1.1981. This fact was made known to the tenant through the earlier notice, which was sent to the tenant for non-payment of rent for the period 1.4.1980 to 31.7.1981. The tenant did not even pay the meagre rent of Rs. 5 per month for about sixteen months. The petitioner-tenant was duly informed through a notice that the respondents, purchaser of the property from Shivendra Pratap Singh were not ready to continue the tenancy of the petitioner. The arrears of rent were demanded, failing which the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was filed. The petitioner responded to the notice dated 31.7.1981. He indicated in the reply dated 25.8.1981, that the rent was deposited in the State Bank of India vide Challan No. B-108 on the legal advice of his counsel. The amount of rent was sent through money order to Mohammad Iqram, one of the landlords. From these facts, it was amply clear that the petitioner had knowledge as to who were the landlords and to whom the rent should have been given. Admittedly the rent, instead of being deposited in Court, ought to have been paid to the erstwhile landlord Shivendra Pratap Singh or after the sale of the property on 31.1.1981, to the purchasers, respondents new landlords. This is the true intent of the provisions as contained in Section 30.(1) of the Act, which is quoted below:
30 (1) If any person claiming to be a tenant of a building tenders any amount as rent in respect of the building to its alleged landlord and the alleged landlord refuses to accept the same, then the former may deposit such amount in the prescribed manner and continue to deposit any rent which he alleges to be due for any subsequent period in respect of such building until the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept it.
6. Sri M.A. Khan, earned Counsel for the respondent landlords has laid stress that when the landlords signified by notice in writing their willingness to accept the rent from the tenant, the rent was not deposited as per provisions of Section 30(1) of the Act and the relevant Rule 21 of the Rules made thereunder. It is interesting to note that Sri Babu Lal Srivastava, earned Counsel for the tenant had advised the petitioner to send the rent through money order to Sri Mohammad Iqram. No money order receipts were placed by the tenant on record to prove that he had in fact sent the rent to the landlord through money order. The petitioner instead of adhering to the advice of his own counsel Sri Babu Lal Srivastava did not pay any rent to the purchasers of the property, respondents landlords and in the meantime, more than four years had elapsed. Under these circumstances, the landlords had no other alternative except to send another notice on 27.5.1985, through Sri Rameshwar Dayal, advocate. Again the landlords demanded the rent for the period 1.5.1981 to 30.4.1985. (This explanation given by the earned Counsel for the landlords for sending the second notice appears to be satisfactory.) Sri M.A. Khan, earned Counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to both the notices and the reply to the earlier notice submitted by the petitioner tenant. He failed to submit reply to the subsequent notice. When the petitioner did not respond to the said notice, a suit was filed which was ultimately decreed after hearing the version of the tenant. Both the courts below have recorded specific finding that the alleged deposit of rent by the petitioner tenant under Section 30(1) of the Act was not legal and valid. This finding has been arrived on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. The trial court had arrived at its conclusion that after service of the notice, the rent was deposited In Misc. Case No. 225 of 1981. in spite of the demand in writing made by the landlords on 31.7.1981. Despite replying to the notice, the tenant did not care to pay the rent to the landlords personally or through some other mode. The deposit said to be made under Section 30(1) of the Act was not accepted to be a valid deposit by the Court on the ground that compliance of Rule 21 of the Rules was not made. Sri M.A. Khan has placed Rules 21(1) and 21(5) of the Rules made under the Act for convenience of the Court which clearly provide that any person desirous of depositing rent under Section 30 shall apply in Form 'E'. The application shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are opposite parties, and also the process fee and notice in Form "F. In the case of continuance of deposit of rent for any subsequent period, fresh application shall not be necessary, but process fee and the notice in Form "F shall accompany every deposit. Sri Khan has placed reliance on Jagat Prasad v. District Judge, Kanpur and Ors. 1995 (2) ARC 360 (SC); Chotey Lal v. XIVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and Ors. 1994 (1) ARC 289; Pasupati Singh v. 1st Additional District Judge, Ballia and Ors. 1981 ARC 222 and 2001 ARC 653 (FB), in support of his submission that the deposit of rent in the Court by a tenant under Section 30(1) of the Act and Rule 21 of the Rules would constitute a valid defence to eviction petition filed on the ground of arrears of rent. The law provides that when the deposit is in accordance with statutory provisions and not otherwise, then only it can be treated as valid legal deposit. If the deposit is found not to be in accordance with the statutory provisions, the benefit of such deposit would not be available to the tenant. The requirements of Section 31(1) of the Act and Rules 21(3) and 21(5) of the Rules have to be complied with by the tenant. Thus, both the courts below had rightly held that the deposit was not made by the tenant in accordance with the statutory provisions and he had defaulted in making the payment of rent to the landlord. There was absence of this fact in the reply to the notice sent on 19.8.1981 that the tenant had in fact offered the rent. The law is settled that it is the duty of the tenant that he must tender the rent to the landlord. When the landlord refuses to accept the rent, then the other course should be adopted. Admittedly the rent was not deposited in Form 'E' and Form 'F' as contained in the Act. There was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 30(1) of the Act and Rule 21 of the Rules.
7. I have heard the earned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Both the Courts have recorded concurrent and specific findings of fact that the tenant had not deposited the rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 30(1) of the Act and Rule 21 of the Rules. The alleged deposit of rent by the tenant was not in accordance with the said provisions, hence it was not found to be legal and valid on the basis of documentary and other evidence adduced by the parties. These findings have been arrived at after appreciating the reply to the notice and the contents of Misc. Case No. 225 of 1981. Both the courts below have found that in spite of the demand made in writing by the landlord; vide notice dated 31.7.1981. which was even replied by the tenant on 25.8.1981. rent was not tendered to the landlord. The tenant was made known as to who was the landlord. He was duty-bound to first offer rent to the landlord and on his refusal to accept the same, the other modes of deposit should have been followed as per procedure prescribed under the law. Both the courts below have rightly concluded that the rent was not paid by the tenant directly to the landlords. The deposit allegedly made was not accepted by the courts below as a valid deposit on the ground that the compliance of the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules was not made. The deposit was not made by the petitioner on the proper Forms "E" and F' as was provided in Rule 21. It was: a case of non-compliance of the procedure as indicated in Rule 21. The law on the point is settled vide Jagat Prasad v. District Judge, Kanpur and Ors. 1995 (2) ARC 360 and Chotey Lal v. XIVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and Ors. 1994 (1) ARC 289, that the deposit should be made by the tenant on proper form. All these findings are pure findings of fact and they cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as has been held in the following judgments:
1. Abdul Nairn Quraishi v. Masi-Uddin Khan 2005 (UP) RCC 220 : 2005 (2) AWC 1260;
2. Ram Autar Agrawal v. Additional District Judge (Special) Rampur and Ors. 2005 (UP) RCC 192 : 2005 (1) AWC 833;
3. Shree Kishan v. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur and Ors. 2005 (UP) RCC 364 : 2005 (3) AWC 2172;
4. Alimuddtn v. Xllth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut and Ors. 2005 (UP) RCC 388 : 2005 (3) AWC 2457; and
5. Bata India Ltd., Calcutta v. Illrd Additional District Judge, Muzajfarnagar and Ors. 2001 (19) LCD 330 : 2001 (1) AWC 795.
9. In the present set of circumstances, the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Kameshwar Singh (supra), as relied upon by the earned Counsel for the petitioner, do not apply in the present case.
10. In view of above, the writ petition has no force and the same is dismissed with costs.