The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of rent deposits made by the tenant under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, and the presumption of correctness of refusal endorsements made by government servants.

S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This is tenants' writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 1, Mahavir Prasad filed S.C.C. Suit No. 290 of 1987 against Mahesh Prasad the original tenant for his eviction on the ground of default and recovery of rent. Rate of rent is Rs. 23 per month. Property in dispute is a residential house situate on the ground floor in Ram Bagh, Kanpur City and contains one room, verandah, kitchen and common court-yard. The trial court/II A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar decreed the suit through judgment and decree dated 22.3.1994. Original tenant Mahesh Prasad since deceased and survived by the petitioners filed S.C.C. Revision No. 64 of 1994 against judgment and decree passed by the trial court. V A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar, through judgment and order dated 8.2.2001 dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition.

3. Notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was sent on 4.8.1986 and was served upon the tenant on 6.8.1986. In the said notice, rent from 10.3.1985 till 9.7.1986 was demanded.

4. Tenants' case is that landlord stopped accepting rent from 10.3.1985, hence tenant sent the rent through money-orders thrice but all the money-orders were refused to be accepted by the landlord, hence tenant deposited the rent u/s 30 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The said case was allowed on 20.11.1985. Suit was filed on 21.4.1987. In the case, u/s 30 of the Act, tenant had deposited the rent till February, 1987.

5. According to the tenant, he sent the rent through money-order on the following dates:

(i) 14.5.1985.

(ii) 13.6.1985.

(iii) 10.7.1985.

6. The case u/s 30 of the Act instituted by the tenant was registered as Misc. Case No. 925/70 of 1985. Money-orders coupons and receipts were filed by the tenant in the said case and the file of the said case was summoned in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition.

7. The courts below held that the mere fact that the file of the case u/s 30 of the Act had been summoned and money-order, coupons and receipts were available on the said file did not mean that the said money-order coupons and receipts were proved in the suit also. I do not agree with this finding in the least. Original documents in the file of a case, which has been summoned, are as good as filed in the case in which file of the earlier case has been summoned. Courts below held that postman was not examined to prove the refusal on the money-order coupons. There is always a presumption that refusal endorsement made by the postman, who is Government servant, is correct. In the case, u/s 30 of the Act, the rent was for the first time deposited on 23.9.1985, which was for the period from 10.3.1985 to 9.9,1985. The courts below held that the order permitting the tenant to deposit the 1 rent in the case u/s 30 of the Act was passed by the Munsif on 18.9.1985 and notice of the said case 'had been served upon the landlord but he did not appear. The courts below held that in case even u/s 30, rent on several occasions was deposited late. However, in my opinion, the said fact will not make any difference as at the time when notice was sent by the landlord, rent for four months was not due in the sense that it had been deposited u/s 30 of the Act.

8. The details of deposit made by the tenant u/s 30 of the Act as given in Para 11 of his written statement filed before the trial court, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, are as follows:

Six months' rent from 10.3.1985 to 9.9.1985 deposited on 23.9.1985.

Three months' rent from 10.12.1985 to 9.2.1985 deposited on 7.3.1986.

Four months' rent from 10.2.1986 to 9.6.1986 deposited on 12.7.1986.

Four months' rent from 10.6.1986 to 9.10.1986 deposited in August, 1986.

Three months' rent from 10.10.1986 to 9.1.1987 deposited on 20.2.1987.

9. Accordingly, when notice dated 4.8.1986 was received by the tenant he was not defaulter of four or more months as on 12.7.1986 rent till 9.6.1986 had already been depos