On 12 August, 1980 the suit filed by the landlords was decreed.
More importantly, the Appellants chose to deposit at the rate of Rs.
80 per month was the rent of the premises.
80 per month were number on time.
The first deposit was on 29th April, 1967 for the period from 1st October, 1966 to 31st March, 1967 .
The Landlords also claimed that as the tenancy of A.K, Gaur had been terminated the Appellants were number entitled to the benefit of Section 39.
80 per month were number on time.
Provided that a tenant the rent payable by whom does number exceed twenty five rupees per month need number deposit any interest as aforesaid.
This permission was granted by the Court.
80 per month were number made on time and interest for the delayed period had also number been deposited.
On 15th July, 1972 the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter refereed to as the said Act was enacted.
The Appellants were brought on record as his heirs.
The landlords then filed Suit No.
He submitted that, as there were numberarrears, numberinterest was payable.
2002 Supp 4 SCR 17 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 30th July, 1998.
Sections 3 a and 39 of the said Act read as follows Definitions.
1491 less and, therefore, were number entitled to the benefit of Section 39.
The landlords, therefore, did number pursue their application and numberorder was passed thereon.
It was also held that the Appellants were number the tenants under the said Act and, therefore, number entitled to the benefit of Section 39.
On 29th April, 1967 A.K. Gaur deposited the rent due and payable for the period from 1st October, 1966 to 31st March, 1967.
100 per month, had number been deposited and the entire amount of the rent had number been deposited.
The landlords however did number set out what had number been deposited.
He submitted that at the time the said Act came into force there were numberarrears.
The Court, therefore, set aside the Order dated 31st July, 1982 and restored the decree of the trial Court.
The landlords claimed that the Appellants had deposited Rs.
20 per month and interest thereon.
The Appellants made an application under Section 39 of the said Act claiming that they had deposited all the rents and calling upon the landlords to companyfirm the same.
The premises had been given on rent to said A.K. Gaur at a monthly rent of Rs.
100 per month.
By his letter in reply dated 6th October, 1966 A.K. Gaur claimed that the rent up to September, 1966 had already been paid.
By choosing to deposit at the rate of Rs.
It was held that the rent for the premises was Rs, 100 per month.
80 per month.
The landlords then applied that they be allowed to withdraw the amounts lying deposited in Court.
80 per month when the actual rent was Rs.
Here again interest had number been deposited for the delayed payments.
On 25th April, 1968 he deposited rent for the period from 1st October, 1967 to 31st March, 1968.
The Court, therefore, called upon the Landlords to indicate what according to them had number been deposited.
The landlords filed a reply denying that all the rents had been deposited.
80 per month whilst the rent was Rs.
A.K. Gaur filed an application seeking permission to deposit the rent in the Court.
All these deposits were at the rate of Rs.
The said K. Gaur was the tenant of the Respondents 1 and 2 hereinafter called landlords .
He submitted that, therefore, the High Court was right in companyfirming the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court.
This Writ Petition came to be allowed by the impugned Judgment dated 30th July, 1998.
100 per month, They also indicated that there had been delay in deposits and that interest had number been deposited in respect thereof.
It was held that there was a short deposit and that, therefore, the Appellants companyld number claim the benefit of Section 39.
Civil Revision No.
It is held that the deposits at the rate of Rs.
It was held that they had deposited all the amounts and were entitled to the benefit of Section 39.
Thus from October 1966 to March 1967 there had been numberdeposits.
20, even though the deposits at rate of Rs.
It is held that rent, at the rate of Rs.
In any suit for eviction of a tenant from any building to which the old Act did number apply, pending on the date of companymencement of this Act, where the tenant within one month from such date of companymencement or from the date of his knowledge of the pendency of the suit, whichever be later, deposits in the companyrt before which the suit is pending, the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlords full companyt of the suit, numberdecree for eviction shall be passed except on any of the grounds mentioned in the proviso to sub section 1 or in clauses b to g of sub section 2 of Section 20, and the parties shall be entitled to make necessary amendment in their pleadings and to adduce additional evidence where necessary.
for the period from 1st October, 1967 to 31st March, 1968 .
The landlords then filed Writ Petition 11858 of 1982 in the High Court of Allahabad.
80 per month as certain facilities had been withdrawn.
The said A.K. Gaur claimed that the rent was only Rs.
80 per month they took a risk that if the Court did number accept their companytentions there would be numberfull deposit.
The third deposit is on 25th April, 1968.,
2385 of 1966 for eviction, for recovery of rent and for damages and mense profits.
In this Act, unless the companytext otherwise requires a tenant, in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenants death In the case of a residential building, such only of his heirs as numbermally resided with him in the building at the time of his death In the case of a number residential building, his heirs xxx xxx xxx Pending suits for eviction relating to buildings brought under regulation for the first time.
128 of 1980 filed by the Appellants was allowed by a Judgment dated 31st July, 1982, In this judgment it has been held that the Appellants were tenants within the meaning of the said Act.
The landlords then gave particulars indicating that the deposits had only been made at the rate of Rs.
On 15th January, 1970 A.K. Gaur died.
On 6th October, 1967 he deposited rent for the period from 1st April, 1967 to 30th September, 1967.
On 29th September, 1966 the landlords sent a numberice terminating the tenancy of A.K. Gaur with effect from the 31st day of the receipt of the numberice.
The tenancy was terminated on the ground that the rent had number been regularly paid.
It is an admitted position that the old Act did number apply to the companycerned premises.
A.K. Gaur opposed this application on the ground that the landlords companyld only withdraw provided they accepted that Rs.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Appellants are the wife, son and daughter of one A.K. Gaur.
