- (1.)HEARD Sri R. K. Awasthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Amitabh Agarwal, learned Counsel who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of new purchasers Devendra Kumar and Sadhna, who have also been substituted at the place of respondent No. 3.
(2.)THIS is tenants. ' writ petition. Original respondents No. 3 and 4 Mahendra Pal Singh and Shrimati Kalawati instituted S. C. C Suit No. 14 of 1988 against the original petitioners-tenants for eviction on the ground of default and subletting and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed by J. S. C. C. /munsif, Pilibhit on 10. 7. 1989. However, finding on subletting was recorded in favour of the tenants. Property in dispute is a house rent of which is Rs. 31. 25 per month.
(3.)THE house in dispute was purchased by the plaintiffs respondents 3 and 4 on 21,9. 1981. Notice, was given on 26. 12. 1987 demanding rent from 21. 9. 1981. The tenant sent reply to the notice and stated that up till 1. 10. 1986 he had deposited the rent under section 30 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in Misc. Case No. 68 of 1981 and with effect from 1. 10. 1986 till 30. 11. 1987 the due rent was Rs. 500 which was being sent through money order. Admittedly the money order was sent and was accepted by the landlord. Trial Court/ J. S. C. C. in its judgment dated 10. 7. 1989 mentioned that there was no evidence of deposit of rent under section 30 from 1. 2. 1985 to 1. 10. 1986. (Actually the Trial Court held that tenders for the rent from 1. 2. 1985 till 31. 1. 1988 had to been filed. It was not the case of the tenant that he had deposited rent until 31. 1. 1988. Tenant pleaded that he had deposited rent till 30. 9. 1986 and had sent rent from 1. 10. 1986 to 31. 1. 1988 (Rs. 500) through money order which was accepted ). Trial Court held that for other deposits tenders had been filed but for the aforesaid period no tender had been filed.