An order passed by the Munsif under S. 30 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 is revisable under S. 115 of the Civil P. C.

S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the tenant of opposite parties 3 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as landlords) in respect of premises No. 1779 (first floor) Gwynne Road, Lucknow. It appears that a notice dated 8-9-1980 was sent by the landlords to the petitioner demanding arrears of rent from him. The tenancy of the petitioner was also terminated by the said notice which was served upon the petitioner on 10-9-1980. It appears that in compliance of the demand made in the said notice, the petitioner sent a cheque for Rs. 2808/- being the rent for the period from 1-4-1980 to 30-9-1980 on 25-9-1980 which was refused. This was followed by rent for the month of October, 1980 which was sent by Money Order on 7-10-1980 but it was also refused. On the expiry of the period of notice, a suit for the eviction of the petitioner was filed by the landlords in the Court of the District Judge, Lucknow on 14-10-1980 which was registered as SC. Suit No. 58 of 1980. It is still pending, having in the meantime been transferred to the Court of Vth Addl. District Judge, Lucknow.

( 3 ) ON 4-10-1980 petitioner filed an application in the Court of Munsif North, Lucknow, for permission to deposit the rent in Court under S. 30 (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 (for short, Act) on the ground that the rent when tendered to the landlords through the cheque and the Money Order was refused by them. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 258 of 1980 against which the landlords filed objections in which it was, inter alia, pleaded that a regular suit for eviction of the petitioner had already been filed on the ground of default and, therefore, there was no occasion to allow the petitioner to deposit the rent in Court particularly as his tenancy had been terminated by notice dated 8-9-1980 and he was no longer a tenant. The learned Munsif by his order dated 19-4-1982 rejected the application on the ground that a suit for eviction had already been filed against the petitioner and it was not possible to allow the petitioner to deposit the rent under S. 30 of the Act.

( 4 ) THE petitioner challenged this order in a revision filed in the Court of the District Judge, Lucknow under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. which was dismissed on 25-9-1982 as not maintainable on the basis of a decision of this Court in Ram Bharosey Lal v. The Munsif, Agra, 1980 All Rent Cas 427.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has now come to this Court.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by a Munsif under S. 30 of the Act is revisable under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. as the Munsif essentially functions as a Civil Court subordinate to the District Judge and, therefore, the petitioners revision could not have been dismissed as not maintainable. Learned counsel for the Landlords has, on the other hand contended, that in dismissing the revision, the learned Addl. District Judge had merely followed the decision of this Court in Ram Bharosey Lals case (1980 All Rent Cas 427) (supra) and, therefore, the error not being apparent on the face of the record, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 7 ) I may at the very outset point out that the decision in Ram Bharosey Lals case (supra) was based on a concession made by the counsel in that case that a revision against an order passed under S. 30 of the Act was not maintainable. The decision is, therefore, not of a persuasive or binding value and on a consideration of the whole gamut of the legal position. I have no hesitation in saying that the revision was maintainable and it could not have been rejected on the ground that the order of the Munsif was not revisable under S. 115 of the Civil P. C.

( 8 ) S. 30 of the Act provides as under : "30 (1 ). If any person claiming to be a tenant of building tenders any amount as rent in respect of a building to its alleged landlord and the landlord refuses

Click Here to Read the rest of this document