The deposit of rent by the tenant entitled them to the benefit of Section 20(4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and the purpose of tenancy must be considered before eviction.

Heard Shri V. K. Bisht, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Virendra Kaparwan, Counsel for the applicant and Shri Ramji Srivastava, Counsel for the respondent.

2. By the present civil revision filed under section 25 of Small Cause Courts Act, the applicant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 12. 9. 2007 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Courts, Tehri Garhwal in O. S. No. 1 of 2000.

3. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for the eviction of the defendant on the ground that the defendant is a tenant @ Rs. 300/-per month of the property consisting of one room situate at village Tapovan (Laxman Jhula), District Tehri Garhwal. Later on the plaintiff felt need of the said shop. The defendant promised to vacate the same by 25. 9. 1999 but he failed to do so. The shop was let out for business purposes but the defendant used the same for residential purposes. The defendant is also having other shops on rent. It has been alleged that the use of the tenanted room is against the terms of tenancy. The plaintiff sent a notice demanding arrears of rent and other charges and terminated the tenancy of the defendant by way of the notice dated 31. 1. 2000, which was served on the defendant on 2. 2. 2000, but the defen dant has neither vacated the shop nor paid the arrears of rent. Hence, the pre sent suit has been filed for eviction as well as realization of rent, etc. from the defendant.

4. The defendant did not file the written statement and the suit was or dered to be proceeded ex-parte but later on the defendant has filed a written statement after setting aside of the ex-parte order. In the written statement, it has been stated that the defendant is a tenant of the disputed property @ Rs. 300/- per month. It has been alleged that the plaintiff has disconnected his electricity from September, 1998 and he has never promised on 26. 10. 1998 to va cate the premises in question. The rent and all other charges have been paid upto October, 1999 but the plaintiff has not issued any receipt. The defendant has tried to pay the rent to the plaintiff but he has not accepted the same. Therefore, the defendant has deposited the rent upto August 2001 in the Court and tenancy of defendant is not legally

terminated. It has been submitted that the tenancy in question has not been terminated, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Judge, Small Causes Courts has framed the following issues: -

1. Whether the defendant has committed any default in payment of rent?

2. Whether the alleged premises is being used by the defendant against the terms and conditions of tenancy?

3. Whether the notice sent by plaintiff defendant is illegal?

6. While deciding issue No. 1 as to whether the defendant has committed any default in payment of rent, the Judge, Small Cause Court has held that the defendant has deposited all the dues on 8. 9. 2001 on the first date of hearing, therefore, he cannot be held as defaulter and he is entitled to get benefit of sec tion 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

7. While deciding issue No. 2 as to whether the alleged premises is being used by the defendant against the terms and conditions of tenancy, the Judge, Small Causes Courts has held that the purpose of tenancy has not been changed and, therefore, the issue was decided against the plaintiff.

8. While deciding issue No. 3 with regard to validity of notice, the Judge, Small Cause Courts has held that the tenancy was not legally terminated by the said notice.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the Judge, Small Causes Courts has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff pre ferred the Revision No. 46 of 2004 which was allowed with the following ob servations:

"7. As will appear from the order-sheet that the suit has been registered on 13. 3. 2000. The first date was fixed on 2. 5. 2000 and thereafter it has proceeded further on 30. 6. 2000. Thereafter, 4. 8. 2000 w