Compliance with statutory requirements for rent deposit is mandatory for tenants to avoid eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building Act.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.-Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Jayant Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar in SCC suit No. 43 of 2013 and the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 26, Kanpur Nagar in SCC revision No. 29 of 2017 whereby the revisional Court has dismissed the revision of the petitioner-tenant.

3. The respondents-landlord instituted SCC suit No. 43 of 2013 contending inter alia that the petitioner is the tenant of the suit premises described in the plaint at Rs. 300/- per month plus 18% interest. It is alleged that the petitioner did not pay the rent from 1.12.2006 to 31.12.2012. The respondent landlord stated that he is not claiming the time-barred rent and is claiming only the rent from the date of the institution of the suit.

4. The said suit was contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing a written statement contending inter alia that when the respondents-landlord refused to accept the rent, he instituted misc. case No. 498/70 of 2009 and deposited the rent from 1.5.2009 to 31.12.2013. Accordingly, it is pleaded that since the rent up to date was paid, therefore, there was no default in payment of rent and the suit was not maintainable.

5. The trial Court framed the issue as to whether the petitioner has defaulted in payment of rent and has complied with the requirement of Section 20(4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'UP Act No. 13 of 1972').

6. The trial Court on the basis of evidence on the record returned a finding that the petitioner has not led any evidence on record proving the fact that he had paid the rent from December 2006 to April 2009. It further recorded that the petitioner did not file any rent receipt or any money order receipt proving that the rent for the period from December 2006 to April 2009 was paid. Accordingly, it held that the petitioner has defaulted in payment of the rent.

7. On the issue of compliance with Section 20(4) of UP Act No. 13 of 1972, the trial Court returned a finding that the petitioner has not led any evidence on record establishing that he has complied with the Rule 21(5) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules, 1972') in depositing the rent under Section 30 of UP Act No. 13 of 1972. Accordingly, it held that the deposit under Section 30 of UP Act No. 13 of 1972 is not valid, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of Section 20(4) of UP Act No. 13 of 1972.

8. The petitioner, thereafter preferred SCC revision No. 29 of 2017. The revisional Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the revision of the petitioner.

9. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is established on record that the petitioner had deposited the rent up till 31.12.2013, therefore, there was no default in payment of the rent for four months on the date of institution of the suit. Consequently, it is submitted that the suit was not maintainable.

10. It is further contended that the trial Court as well as the revisional Court has erred in law in holding that the petitioner failed to comply with Section 20(4) of UP Act No. 13 of 1972. In this respect, he has placed reliance upon two judgments of this Court in the cases of Satya Prakash Goel v. Smt. Kavita Jain, 2019 (3) ARC 260 and Brij Bhushan Mishra v. Surita Sarbabdhikari (Smt.) and another, 2009 (1) ARC 391.

11. It is further contended that the petitioner cannot be non-suited on the ground that he has defaulted in payment of rent from 2006 to 2009 which was time-barred rent, and if that period is excluded, it is established on record t