Badri Nath vs Satyendra Singh

Prakash Krishna, J.

This revision has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 1331989 passed by the court of small causes, VIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi in suit no. 27 of 1986 whereby and whereunder the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages has been dismissed.

It appears that the plaintiff, who has filed the present revision, instituted the aforestated suit against the defendants on the allegations that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The defendants are in occupation as tenants on monthly rent of Rs. 40/ and they are liable to pay water tax at the rate of Rs. 44/ per annum. In spite of service of notices of demand and ejectment dated 2891984 and 811985, the defendants have failed to pay the arrears of rent etc and thus they are liable for eviction under Section 20(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The suit was contested on number of pleas including that there is no default in payment of rent in as much as the defendants tenants have already deposited the rent in an earlier instiuted suit. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, relevant points for determination were framed by the trial court., who after trial, dismissed the suit.

The only point urged in the present revision is that the finding recorded by the court below that there was no default in payment of arrears of rent etc. is vitiated. Elaborating the arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the rent should have been deposited in the present suit and any deposit made by the defendants tenants in the earlier suit is of no consequence.

I have given careful consideration to the above submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, but it is difficult to agree with him. It is not in dispute that the defendants tenants had deposited a sum of Rs. 9,017/ on 16111984 i.e. prior to issuance of second notice dated 811985. It is also not in dispute that the said amount was deposited by the defendants tenants in the earlier suit institued by the present plaintiff. The court below has taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly reached to the conclusion that there was no default in payment of arrears of rent. The findings recorded by the court below are perfectly justified and call for no interference.

The revision lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed., but no order as to costs.