S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a decree for the eviction of the tenant respondents from the premises in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation pendent-lite and future, which suit was decreed by the Judge Small Cause Court on 3-8-1984. This decree was however, reversed by the revi-sional court vide its judgment and decree dated 8/11/1985, whereunder the suit was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the revisional order and restoration of the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Court.

( 2 ) THE facts, shorn of details necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff petitioner had come up with the allegations that the defendant tenant was a defaulter in the payment of rent which had remained unpaid since 19-1-1975. Accordingly a notice as contemplated under S. 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as act) read together with the provisions contained in S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued on 7-9-1981 terminating the tenancy of the tenant respondent which was duly served on 9-9-1981. It is asserted that the tenant neither paid the amount of arrears of rent nor vacated the premises in dispute, hence the suit. This suit was contested by the tenant respondent denying the assertions of the plaintiff about his being in arrears of rent. The case of the defendant was that the rent due up to 18-8-1981 was paid to the wife of the plaintiff and the rent was due since 19-8-1981 only. It was thus, asserted that on the date of service of the notice dated 9-9-1981, the rent for not less that four months was not in arrears as contemplated under S. 20 (2) (a) of the Act and the suit therefore could not proceed and was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was also pleaded that to avoid any dispute the tenant had deposited the amount contemplated under S. 20 (4) of the Act in order to get relieved against any liability for eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent.

( 3 ) THE trial court after carefully considering the evidence and the materials on the record came to the conclusions that the defendant tenant was not entitled to the benefits available under S. 20 (4) of the Act inasmuch as he had failed to deposit the requisite amount contemplated thereunder and had not complied with the conditions prescribed therein on the fulfilment of which alone any such benefit could be extended. The Judge Small Cause Court further came to the conclusion that the defendant was a defaulter, in the payment of rent and was in arrears of rent for not less than four months as contemplated under S. 20 (2) (a) of the Act. The trial court on the appraisal of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the defendant tenant had infact not paid any amount of rent subsequent to 18-1-1975. Consequently the suit was decreed.

( 4 ) THE revisional Court endorsed the finding of the trial court on the question relating to the availability of the benefit contemplated under S. 20 (4) of the Act and affirmed the decision of the trial court on this question and clearly negatived the claim of tenant respondent in this regard. However, on re-appraisal of evidence, the revisionsal court reversed the finding of the trial Court holding the defendant tenant to be a defaulter within the meaning of S. 20 (2) (a) of the Act. The revisional Court expressed the view that the payment of rent by the tenant to the wife of the landlord was sufficient to discharge the liability which rested upon the defendant tenant in respect of the payment of rent for the accommodation in dispute.

( 5 ) THE revisional court drew an adverse inference against the plaintiff for not producing his wife as a witness in the case holding that the production of the wife of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document