JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court in SCC Suit No. 121 of 2000, Siya Ram vs. Smt. Rani Devi and Others and the judgment and order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13 Lucknow in SCC Revision No. 1300034 of 2008, Smt. Rani Devi and Others vs. Siya Ram.

2. Admittedly, Siya Ram, the plaintiff in the original suit and the respondent no. 3 herein, the owner of shop no. 1110 situated at J.K. Gola Bazaar, Sadar, Lucknow had originally let out the said shop to Sri Ram Kumar Vaish on a monthly rent of Rs. 18/- per month. After the death of Ram Kumar, the defendants in the original suit and the petitioners herein, being his heirs and legal representatives, became joint tenants.

3. After due notice, demanding payment of arrears as well as to quit the premises, the respondent no. 3 instituted SCC Suit No. 121 of 2000 against the petitioners in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Lucknow on 01.07.2000. The respondent no. 3 restricted his claim for recovery of arrears of rent from 01.05.1997 to 03.06.2000 to Rs. 667.80, for damages for use and occupation for the period extending from 04.06.2000 to 30.06.2000 to Rs. 16.80 and for ejectment of the petitioners from the suit premises. It was also alleged that the petitioners had sublet the premises without the consent of the respondent no. 3. In his suit, the respondent no. 3 relinquished his claim for rent for the period 01.01.1977 to 30.04.1997 as the relief was time barred.

4. On 17.01.2001, the petitioner nos.2 & 3, filed their joint written statement wherein, they controverted the material averments made by the respondent no. 3. They inter-alia pleaded that when the respondent no. 3 refused to accept the rent, Ram Kumar, the original tenant deposited the rent for the period 01.01.1977 to 31.3.1992 under section 30(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'Act') in Misc. Case No. 11 of 1981 and after his death, his widow Smt Rani Devi, the petitioner no. 1, deposited rent up to 30.09.2000 in the said case, before the filing of the SCC Suit. It was further pleaded that on legal advice, Smt. Rani Devi had unconditionally deposited a sum of Rs. 3151/- in the Court being the rent and damages up to 30.09.2000, together with interest, cost etc. as required by section 20(4) of the Act and as such the petitioners be relieved of liability for eviction on the ground of default. The petitioner nos. 4 & 5 filed their separate written statements reiterating the averments made by the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 in their written statement.

5. The respondent no. 3 filed his replication in which it was inter-alia pleaded that the rent deposited under Section 30(1) of the Act was not a valid deposit as process fee and the notice in Form F had not been filed with subsequent deposits as required under the Rules and as the entire amount of rent was not deposited by the petitioners as required under Section 20(4) of the Act, they could not be relieved from their liability for eviction.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

7. The trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent no. 3 by judgment dated 13.09.2006. The trial Court held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; the shop was not sublet by the petitioners as alleged by the respondent no. 3; service of notice was found sufficient; the petitioners were found to be defaulters under Section 20(2) of the Act. On these findings the suit was decreed.

8. The petitioners preferred a Civil Revision No. 35 of 2006 challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court before the District Judge, Lucknow. It appears that the only contention urged by the petitioners before the Revisional Court was with regard to the effect of deposit made by them before the trial Court under Section 20(4) of the Act. The Revisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document