The tenant must strictly comply with the requirements of the Rent Control Act and deposit rent in the court as required by law.

JUDGMENT :

Lok Pal Singh, J.

1. Instant civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2012 passed by Additional District Judge/F.T.C. III, Haridwar in SCC case no. 02 of 2007 Vijay Kumar Agarwal vs. Ashok Kumar Handa and others, whereby the suit filed by the revisionist/landlord has been dismissed.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that the revisionist is the landlord and owner of shop in dispute being situated at Ganga Ajure Hotel, Railway Road, Haridwar. Respondent was the tenant @ Rs. 100/- per month in the disputed shop till July, 2000. In the year 2000, as the respondent/tenant was facing difficulties in running his shop due to less space, the revisionist/landlord permitted the respondent/tenant to use a small room adjoining the shop and also constructed a floor etc. and in lieu thereof it was agreed between the parties that the respondent/tenant will pay rent @ Rs.2500/- per month. The respondent/tenant also agreed to accept all the terms and conditions of the tenancy and rent was enhanced from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs.2500/- per month w.e.f. 01.08.2000. It was also stated that the respondent/tenant paid rent of Rs.2500/- per month till August 2005 but thereafter he did not pay the rent. The revisionist/landlord demanded the rent from him but he started making excuses. It was stated that the respondent/tenant has not paid the rent of the suit premises for the period 01.09.2005 to 30.11.2006, amounting to Rs. 37,500/-. The revisionist was thus constrained to issue a registered notice under Section 106 of The Transfer of Property Act, thereby demanding the due rent and terminating the tenancy of the respondent/tenant, on expiry of the period of 30 days. As the respondent/tenant refused to receive the said notice, present suit was instituted seeking a decree of eviction and recovery of rent and damages and mesne profits against the respondent.

3. On institution of the suit, trial court issued summons to the respondent on several dates by both ways, but he avoided the service. Thereafter, the steps were taken for substituted service and the service was effected upon the respondent through publication in the daily newspaper. After service of notice through publication, the respondent appeared before the court and filed his written statement paper no. 19C denying the plaint averments. He contended that he is tenant in the suit premises @ Rs. 100/- per month. The adjoining room was not included to extend the area of the shop. It was also stated that the shop in question is situated in a building which was earlier known as Hotel Gurudev, which is now known as Hotel Ganga Ajure and Sardar Babu Singh was in ownership and possession of the said building and he is the tenant in the shop in dispute @ Rs. 100/- per month since the lifetime of Sardar Babu Singh. The revisionist/landlord had purchased the shop including the adjoining hotel and shops from the owners of Hotel Gurudev and as such the respondent became the tenant of the revisionist. It was also stated that the respondent is doing tailoring business with the name and style of M/s. Sky Lark Tailor in the shop in dispute. The revisionist wanted to evict the respondent from the suit premises and therefore he deliberately has not accepted the rent. It was also stated that the respondent had paid the rent upto 31.12.1996 to the previous owner and as the revisionist was not accepting rent and wanted to terminate the tenancy of the respondent, the respondent sent the rent to the revisionist through money order for the period 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2006, which was also refused by the revisionist. The respondent, thus, deposited the rent for the period 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2006 before the trial court under Section 30(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) and thereafter the rent was deposited till 31.12.2007 in misc. case no. 77/2006. It was contended that the defendant h