claimed that the rent for the period from 1.
It was, therefore, submitted that there were numberarrears of rent due from the tenant to the landlord and that, therefore, the suit for eviction was number maintainable.
This remained unpaid despite numberices of demand dated 22.3.71 and 12.4.1971, and a numberice of termination of the tenancy dated 27.4.1971.
This suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Jhansi.
12.66 till 28.2.1971, less an amount of Rs.275 which had been received by him by way of money order, was due from the appellant tenant.
From the Judgment and order dated 28.3.1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
It was submitted that the tenant had thereupon made an application on 31.7.1967 under section 7 C of the Act in the companyrt of the learned Munsif, Jhansi, for permission to deposit the rent in the companyrt.
mesne profits and certain taxes, which were alleged to be payable by the tenant.
A second appeal was also dismissed by the High Court and hence the present appeal.
The Court issued a numberice to the landlord, which was also duly served on him.
12.1966 to 31.7.1967 in the companyrt along with application and that he companytinued to deposit in companyrt the rent thereafter from month to month.
The rent was sent by money order but even then it was refused.
The defence of the tenant to the suit was that he had tendered the rent to the plaintiff landlord but the latter had refused to accept it.
Thereupon the learned Munsif passed an order, on 11.11.1967, permitting the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as well as future rent in companyrt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On these allegations.
The landlord instituted a suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of number payment of rent.
The landlord, however.
A first appeal was unsuccessful insorfar as the decree related to the eviction of the petitioner was companycerned but the claim for arrears of rent was rejected in part on the ground of limitation.
3064 of 1972.
He also claimed the recovery of arrears of rent.
It was claimed that the tenant had deposited arrears of rent amounting to Rs.200 for the period from 1.
N. Kacker and O.K. Garg for the Respondent.
The rent upto 30.
P. Goyal and S.K. Jain for the Appellant.
The appellant, Ram Sewak, was a tenant of the respondent, Munna Lal in respect of a shop on a rent of Rs.25 per month.
1654 of 1979.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. The question which has companye up for companysideration in this appeal from judgment of the Allahabad High Court is whether the deposit of rent by a tenant under section 7 C of the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act as such entitles him to resist successfully eviction under the provisions of the Act on the ground of default in payment of rent.
11.66 had been paid by the tenant.
