Rakesh Tiwari, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
SCC Suit No. 5 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiff respondent for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction from the shop in dispute against the defendants petitioners. It is admitted that the plaintiff respondent is the landlord of the shop in dispute which according to the averments made in the written statement, was given to the father of petitioner no.1 on rent and after his death, the petitioners admittedly have taken possession of it and are residing in it. The aforesaid suit was filed with the allegations that the tenants had not only damaged the portion of the property but had also not paid the rent for the period 1.4.1997 to 18.7.1997, hence their tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 20.8.2000.
2. The plaint allegations were denied by the plaintiff respondent by filing written statement before the Court below in the suit interalia that they had been regularly depositing the entire rent and no damage was caused to the suit property.
3. At the outset the Court has made two queries from the learned counsel for the petitioners, firstly as to how the user of the shop in question has been changed from commercial to residential without permission of the landlord as it has come on record that the tenancy of the shop in question has devolved upon the petitioners and now it is an admitted fact that they are residing therein and secondly what is the illegality in the impugned order of the Revisional Court in holding that the expenses towards publication of notice amounting to Rs. 2250/ were not deposited on the first date of hearing of the suit and as such they could not be given benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
4. It appears that the Revisional Court has come to the conclusion that the trial Court has committed an error in law in not taking the expenses of publication of notice to be included in rent for the purpose of determining that the tenants have deposited the entire arrears of rent. The Revisional Court has relied upon the cases of Gopal Yadav versus Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Varanasi, 2002(46), ALR454 and Ajai Pal Singh versus Additional District Judge, Nainital, 2001(45), ALR724, wherein it has been held by the Court that expenses incurred in publication of notice are also part of the arrears of rent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has deposited the expenses including the ''Talwana'', therefore, the amount of rent deposited by him is sufficient for giving benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the suit was decided in favour of the defendants petitioners by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 10.12.2007 holding that they had deposited the entire rent along with expenses, hence they were liable to get benefit of Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.12.2007, the respondent filed SCC Revision No. 1 of 2008 before the Revisional Court. The findings of the trial Court with regard to deposit of arrears of rent and expenses have been reversed by the Revisional Court vide judgment and order dated 30.1. 2010 and the judgment and order dated 10.12.2007 passed in SCC Suit No. 5 of 2001 has been set aside directing the defendants petitioners to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the shop in question to the landlord within 3 months. The compensation and damages were also imposed by the Revisional Court by the aforesaid order dated 30.1.2010.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any illegality in the impugned order of the Revisional Court nor has been able to answer the queries made by the Court as stated above. In my opinion, the rulings in the cases of Gopal Yadav and Ajai Pal Singh (supra) are sparely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case as such the Revisional Court has not committed any error in holding that the entire arrears of rent were not deposited on the first date of hearing.
9. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Revisional Court is upheld. No order as to costs.
