AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Mahajan, J.—This is revision petition against the order of Sri Harish Chandra Saxena, 1st Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dated 2081983 by virtue of which the suit of the plaintiffrespondent was decreed for the recovery of Rs. 1199.50 and the suit for ejectment was dismissed.
The revisionist defendant is a tenant of premises in dispute i.e. house No. 155 Kambalwala Bagh, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar at the rate of Rs. 150. It is alleged that the tenant was also paying electricity charges and meter rent. The landlord filed a suit For the recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 780, from 16111981 to 2141982 and Rs. 58.50 as arrears of rent and water tax for the said period. Rs. 100 has been claimed as electricity charge and Rs. 10 as meter rent for the said period and further Rs. 59.75 as water charges from 1st April, 1988 to 30111981. The notice was given for payment of Rs. 1279.50 including the mesne profit but no payment was made. The case of the defendant is that the rent is Rs. 90 and not Rs. 150 and he paid under protest in the previous litigation at the rate of Rs. 150. He has also filed the suit for recovery of excess rent paid.
The trial court gave a finding that tender of Rs. 763 is correct. He has not committed any default in payment of rent. The trial court also gave a finding that the money order of Rs. 1186 was not accepted by the landlord. However, the trial court was of the view that the tenant is still in arrears of Rs. 1199.50 and decree was passed. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the rate of rent is Rs. 90 and not. 150 and that he is still pursuing the matter in the civil court.
I am unable to agree with the submission that he deposited the amount under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to save the eviction and the finding of the small court is binding and the same has not been reversed by the appellate forum. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since that trial court has given findings of fact that they are not liable to be disturbed unless they are unreasonable. I have perused the order of the trial court and find nothing perverse or unreasonable either in the appreciation of evidence of interpretation of law. In such circumstances, the revision lacks force and it is dismissed. The order of the lower court is affirmed.
Revision dismissed.