The legal requirements for proving rent payment and depositing rent and interest under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. must be strictly complied with by tenants in rent disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Dhaon, for the respondent nos.3 and 4.

2. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Sitapur and also the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.04, Sitapur, dismissing the Revision No.04 of 2021: Surendra Pal Vishwakarma Vs. Smt. Sudharani Sinha and another.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Late Indra pal had taken two shops and one room on rent from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 Shri Krishna Kumar Sinha at the rate of Rs.350/-per month inclusive of all taxes. One was taken initially on rent on 01.04.1985. Later on on 11.09.1989 another shop adjacent to the tenanted premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs.350/-per month i.e. total of Rs.650/-per month was given by the father of the petitioner to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 for two shops and one room situated in Mohalla Sukkhumal in the city of Sitapur. The rent continued to be paid regularly every month but no receipt was given either by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos.3 & 4 or by the respondent nos. 3 & 4 after the death of Shri Krishna Kumar Sinha.

4. On 22.08.2016, notice was sent to the petitioner by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 alleging therein that the two shops and one room were taken on rent by him at the rate of Rs.1300/-per month with 10% due as water charges and such rent had not been given with effect from April, 2013 to July, 2016 i.e. for the period of 39 months and that such arrears of rent be given to the respondent-landlord within one month. Also the tenancy was determined after the expiry of one month from the date of receipt of notice. The petitioner on receiving such notice sent his reply on 31.08.2016 denying that the two shops and one room were rented out at the rate of Rs.1300/-per month and the additional water charges were also payable. He stated that rent at the rate of Rs.650/-per month inclusive of all charges was payable for the two shops and one room and that all rent had been paid up to June, 2016. Rent for the month of July and August 2016 had been tendered through Money Order. On oral refusal of the respondent-landlord to accept the same, the Money Orders were returned to the petitioner.

5. The respondent-landlord filed SCC Suit for arrears of rent and for eviction on 25.10.2016 registered as SCC Suit No. 14 of 2016. As soon as the petitioner came to know of filing of the said Suit, he filed his written statement and also tendered arrears of rent before the trial court and continued to pay the rent month to month in Court by depositing Rs.715/-i.e. Rs.650/-as rent for the two shops and one room and 10% of the amount as water charges. Learned trial court did not take into account the tendering of rent in court by the petitioner and has held the petitioner to be a defaulter in payment of arrears of rent for the period of 39 months as alleged in the SCC Suit by the plaintiff. It has directed payment of Rs.715/-per month w.e.f. 36 months before the date of filing of the suit i.e. total amount of Rs.25,740/-to the respondent-landlord and a payment of damages at the rate of Rs.500/-per month for continued occupation of the tenanted premises from the date of termination of tenancy till actual delivery of possession which was to be given to the respondent-landlord within 30 days of passing of the order dated 23.02.2021, besides making payment of cost of suit to the plaintiff.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved against such order filed a Revision which was registered as Civil Revision No. 04 of 2021. The Revisional Court ignored the grounds taken by the petitioner in challenging the order dated 23.02.2021 and has arbitrarily rejected the Revision by his order dated 12.04.2022.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Section 20(2), the Suit for evicti