Premwati Devi (Smt.) vs Vijay Kumar Solanki

Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.09.2010 passed by JSCC, Bulandshahr decreeing the suit of respondentlandlord for eviction of petitioner and payment of arrears of rent and revisional order dated 26th of April, 2012 rejecting revision.

Both the courts below have found that petitioner has not deposited the rent and expenses on the first date of hearing and, therefore, she is not entitled for the benefit of Section 20(4) of UP Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (In short "the Act").

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of suit, the rent was deposited by petitioner under Section 30(1) of the Act and, therefore, the said amount was also liable to be credited for the purpose of considering petitioner''s entitlement for the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act.

It is evident from the record that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 5238/ which included rent of Rs. 5016/ up to 16th of October, 2008 along with interest of Rs. 222/ thereon but the expenses for the suit and counsel fee etc. was not deposited. Moreover, after the aforesaid deposit the regular rent was also not paid and to the contrary, the same is said to have been deposited later on under Section 30(1) of the Act. Such deposit has not been held valid and the courts below have rightly placed reliance in the case of Jagat Prasad Vs. District Judge, Kanpur and others [1995(2) ARC 360 (SC)] and Rama Kant Tripathi Vs. Smt. Sheela Devi and others [1995(4) CCC 212].

In these circumstances, the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that petitioner has not complied with the requirements of Section 20(4) of the Act and as such he cannot claim benefit thereof.

I find no error apparent on the face of record in impugned orders warranting any interference.

Dismissed.