Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Both these writ petitions have arisen from proceedings involving common premises and parties, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Sri Ajit Kumar, Advocate, has advanced arguments on behalf of petitioner and Sri Arvind Srivastava, Advocate, has made his submissions on behalf of contesting respondents. Besides, Sri Arvind Srivastava has also filed written arguments.

3. Both these writ petitions have come up under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of a tenant who is occupying a non residential accommodation, i.e., Shop No. 88/2 Sarafa Bazar, Jhansi, owned by plaintiff-respondent No. 1, Sri Radhey Shyam Agrawal (hereinafter referred to as “ the landlord”).

4. In Writ Petition No. 2506 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “First Petition”) the petitioner-tenant has challenged orders of Revisional Court dated 31.8.2007 and 9.10.2007 whereby it allowed applications for admitting additional evidence, and final judgment of Revisional Court dated 30.11.2007 allowing S.C.C. Revision No. 106 of 2004, arising from Small Cause Court Suit No. 9 of 2000.

5. The landlord instituted SCC Suit No. 9 of 2000 in the Court of Khafifa Judge, impleading Sri Ramesh Chandra, Mahesh Chandra and petitioner Suresh Chandra, who are all real brothers, as defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The plaint case set up by landlord is that shop in dispute was let out to defendants on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-, besides Rs. 36/- annual house-tax and Rs. 95/- annual water-tax. The rate of house-tax was revised by Nagar Palika to Rs. 75/- whereupon defendants-tenants were liable to pay house-tax at the rate of Rs. 75/- per annum. The rent from 1.7.1995 to 31.8.1999, i.e., for 50 months fell due, besides the difference of house-tax of 1995-96 to 1998-99. The dues come to Rs. 3000/- towards rent and Rs. 300/- as balance amount of house-tax. Despite demand the defendants did not pay the aforesaid amount whereafter a notice dated 21.9.1999 was sent by registered post to defendant No. 3, who used to pay rent to the landlord. The notice returned by Post Office whereafter again it was sent on 15.10.1999, but the addressee refused to accept it and returned with the aforesaid endorsement. Thus notice was deemed served on 22.10.1999 due to refusal by addressee. Since the defendants failed to pay rent, tenancy stood terminated after notice period. The suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits etc. thereafter was filed vide plaint dated 14.2.2000.

6. The suit was contested by petitioner who was impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the aforesaid suit. In written statement, he admitted tenancy at the rent of Rs. 60/- per month and also admitted that the amount of house-tax and water-tax was payable separately which was Rs. 36/- and Rs. 95/- per annum. The default in payment of rent was denied. In additional pleas, it was said that rent upto 30.6.1995 was received by plaintiff through money orders. Thereafter he declined to accept rent, despite tender by defendants-tenants. It was also pleaded that the entire amount of rent and tax, as claimed by plaintiff, as also interest and expenses of suit were deposited by petitioner-tenant on the first date of hearing, i.e., 4.4.2000/6.4.2000, hence, tenants are entitled for benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) and there is no default, hence, decree of ejectment is liable to be declined.

7. Trial Court formulated following eight issues:

^^1& D;k oknh }kjk izsf"kr uksfVl izfroknh ua03 dks rkehy gqvk\

2& D;k dfFkr uksfVl ds vk/kkj ij nkok izfroknhx.k ds fo:) pyulkj ugha gS\

3& D;k izfroknhx.k us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa pwd dh gS\

4& D;k izfroknhx.k /kkjk 20 ¼4½ ,DV 13@72 dk ykHk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\

5& D;k ok