Sudhir Agarwal, J.@mdashHeard Sri R. A. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. The writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 22nd May, 2007 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar decreeing respondentlandlord''s S. C. C. Suit No. 380 of 2001 and directing for ejectment of petitionerstenants from the premises in dispute namely House No. 104A/156, Rambagh, Kanpur Nagar and recovery of arrears/damages and revisional order dated 4th August, 2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Kanpur Nagar dismissing petitioner''s revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they complied with requirement of Section 20(4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") and deposited entire rent yet both the Courts below have not given benefit of aforesaid provision.
4. However, the Courts below have recorded findings of fact that petitioners miserably failed to demonstrate that rent was deposited and information was given to the respondentlandlord at his correct address and allegation that he refused to accept the rent has not been believed since petitioners failed to prove that money order was sent at correct address of landlord. The Revisional Court, in respect to the above, has recorded following findings of fact:
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners despite repeated query could not show that he has challenged the aforesaid findings in the entire writ petition or that the aforesaid findings are perverse or contrary to record. Copies of the money order receipts/j form have been placed on record at page 36, 57 and 58 and therefrom also it is not evident that at which address the same were sent by the petitioners. In these circumstances, findings recorded by Courts below that petitioners failed to demonstrate that they furnished rent to the landlord, which he declined to accept, has not been proved. Therefore, benefit of Section 20(4) of Act, 1 972 is not available to the petitioners since there was no valid deposit under Section 30(1) of Act, 1 972.
6. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
