The burden of proof lies with the tenant to establish payment of arrears of rent, and failure to deposit rent during the pendency of the Suit can lead to eviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for Revisionist and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Umesh Kumar Tiwari at length.

2. This Civil Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Lucknow in SCC No. 30 of 2017, 'Ajay Kumar Agarwal Vs. Ram Autar Khandelwal' with a delay of around one month. Although time was granted earlier to the counsel for the contesting respondents to file objections but he has not filed objections.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 says that he does not propose to file any objection and the matter be heard on merits.

4. Delay is condoned.

5. Office is directed to give a Regular number to this Revision.

6. It is the case of the Revisionist that the respondent landlord had given a shop on monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- to the Revisionist in 2008. Since then the Revisionist has been paying advance rent continuously either through cash or cheque on demand of the landlord as mutually and orally agreed upon by them. It has been alleged that the respondent’s son had asked the Revisionist for Rupees Two Lakhs for opening a new business, but the Revisionist could not furnish such a huge amount immediately. Becoming annoyed the respondent’s son persuaded his father to throw the Revisionist out from the premises and had many times illegally approached the Revisionist at his shop forcing him to vacate the premises. The Revisionist ultimately filed an Injunction Suit No. 821 of 2017 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lucknow in May, 2017. After getting notice of such Injunction Suit the respondent landlord sent a legal notice on 27.05.2017 for arrears of rent amounting to Rs.78,000/-for the period between 15.04.2016 to 14.05.2017. Such demand was illegal as the Revisionist had already deposited rent w.e.f. March, 2016 to August, 2016 in the bank account of A. K. Enterprises, the transport firm of the respondent landlord, through cheque No. 405647 on 15.02.2016. The Revisionist on receipt of such legal notice had sent a reply on 27.06.2017 that he had already deposited cheque dated 15.02.2016 in the bank account of the firm for the period w.e.f. March, 2016 to August, 2016. Nevertheless cheque No. 488540 of Rs.78,000/-as demanded by the landlord was again being sent along with the reply through registered post to satisfy the demand for arrears of rent. Since reply had been sent along with a cheque of Rs.78,000/-to the respondent landlord, the Revisionist presumed that the matter had been settled satisfactorily.

7. It has been argued that the respondent landlord with malafide intent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 30 of 2017 on 01.07.2017 for arrears of rent and for eviction. On 07.09.2017, the respondent landlord returned the cheque of Rs.78,000/-to the Revisionist through registered post saying that the account of the Firm had been closed long back and the cheque, therefore, could not be accepted. The Revisionist did not accept this cheque, but approached the court for depositing rent where he was surprised to find out about the pendency of the aforesaid S.C.C. Suit No. 30 of 2017. The Revisionist moved an application under Order 15 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC on 19.03.2018 for depositing rent along with 9% interest and Advocate’s fee that is a total amount of Rs.2,29,220/-. Such arrears were deposited on 12.04.2019. Also, thereafter the Revisionist continued to deposit all rent continuously, as and when it fell due, in the court. However, the S.C.C. Suit has been decreed in favour of the respondent landlord, without appreciating the evidence on record including the application under Order 15 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC.

8. It has been argued by Sri Prashant Jaiswal, Advocate appearing for the Revisionist that the learned trial court failed to see that the S.C.C. Suit for arrears of rent was not maintainable as there was no default of rent by the Revisionist. The learned trial court fa