Tenants cannot be evicted for non-payment of rent if they have made proper deposits under legal requirements, and landlords had knowledge of these deposits.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. This petition arises out of an order dated 23.10.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Varanasi in Small Cause Revision No. 05 of 2019 affirming the judgment and decree passed by Judge, Small Causes, Varanasi dated 06.12.2018 in Small Cause Case No. 84 of 2008; Smt. Mahemunir and another vs. Salauddin and another .

3. Briefly stated facts are that landlord respondents instituted a case for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in view of notice issued by them on 23rd September, 2008 determining the tenancy. In initial round of litigation, the trial court did not find the petitioners to be defaulter in payment of rent holding that sufficient deposits were made by them continuously in miscellaneous case instituted by the tenant petitioners filed under Section 30 (1) U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 of which landlord had sufficient knowledge as he had filed objection to the same on 08.08.2000 itself prior to issuance of notice on 23rd September, 2008 and, therefore, neither the petitioners were in arrears of rent of four months to maintain a suit for eviction in view of Sub Section 2 (a) of Section 20 of Act No. 13 of 1972 nor guilty of violation of Rule 25 (1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. This judgment in revision was however, reversed only on the ground that there was no sufficient compliance of Rule 21 (5) of 1972 Rules and, therefore, the deposit was not within the knowledge of respondents landlord and hence the suit would be maintainable. Thus, the trial court was directed to decide issue no. 4 regarding default in payment of rent by the petitioners afresh. Upon remand, this time the trial court held the petitioners to be guilty of non compliance of Rule 21 (5) of the Rules to hold them defaulter in payment of rent and hence liable to be evicted from the demised premises. The said order was challenged in appeal, which also came to be dismissed and now before this Court not only the order of trial court affirmed in appeal has been challenged but also earlier order of remand has been challenged on the ground that even remand was bad on the principles contained under Section 45 (2) CPC.

4. The only point for consideration of the Court is as to whether the finding returned by Judge, Small Cause on the point of default and non compliance of Rule 20 (5) of 1972 Rules was bad and, therefore, both, the order of trial Judge and the order of Revisional Court deserve to be set aside or not.

5. From perusal of the record, pleadings of parties and earlier judgment passed by the Trial Judge, which was reversed in revision, I find that earlier father of respondents had issued notices on 25.02.2000 demanding regular rent and arrears of rent, which was duly replied to, by sending a reply notice along with money order, which he had refused and it is in those circumstances that miscellaneous case under Section 30 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed before the Civil Judge (J.D.) registered as Case No. 11 of 2000 and in that case an order was passed on 14th January, 2000 directing the petitioners to deposit rent and notice was directed to be issued to the defendants and plaintiff petitioners were directed to take steps. The trial court recorded a finding to the effect that original records of the case filed under Section 30 (1) of Act No. 13 of 1972 revealed that steps were taken and that reply notice was sent by the petitioners on 22nd March, 2000, which was marked as Paper No. 13-C filed before the