JUDGEMENT
K.M.Dayal, J. -
(1.)This is a plaintiffs second appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for his ejectment from the accommodation on the basis of tenancy. The decree was claimed on the ground that tenancy of the defendant has been terminated and the provisions of U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act did not apply to the disputed accommodation and, therefore, the defendant was liable to ejectment.
(2.)The suit was decreed by the trial court. An appeal was filed by the defendant against the decree. During the pendency of the appeal U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act was enforced from 15th July 1972. The building was more than 10 years old on that date and consequently the provisions of that Act applied to the said building.
(3.)The defendant moved an application under Sec. 39 read with Sec. 40 of the aforesaid Act claiming relief from ejectment. According to the defendant a sum of Rs. 1993/43 was due from him but he deposited Rs. 2043/42p. The defendant in para- graph 10 of his application under Sec. 39/40 made clear that he was depositing two months rent in excess of the amount due which could be adjusted towards any deficiency. In case there was no deficiency, that amount was to be adjusted towards the rent of the months of Aug. and Sept., 1972. The lower appellate court found that the amount of Rs. 1993/43p. was short by Rs. 30.00 but as the defendant had deposited two months rent in excess for adjustment towards such shortage, gave the defendant relief under Sec. 39/40 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The plaintiff has now come up in appeal.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.