Maqsood vs Sarla Devi

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—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 Annexures15 & 18 respectively to the writ petition.

The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffrespondent 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 tenantpetitioner 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 respondentlandlord. 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:

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:

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 petitionertenant 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 (2) ALR 596, 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 disentitlement 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.