By its order dated 2 1 81 Reported in 1981 All Rent Cas 104 1981 All LJ NOC 46, the High Court allowed the writ petition W.P. No.
The trial Court held that the failure to deposit Rs.40/ was on account of an arithmetical error, and that if the said deposit is taken into account, the tenant be held to have companyplied with the requirement of deposit prescribed by the Act.
On 24 2 78 the tenant filed a written statement.
The respondent landlord filed the suit for eviction on the ground of default in paying rent for the period 4 4 75 to 23 2 78.
8555/79.
This Order of the High Court was challenged by the tenant and has become final.
A revision filed by the tenant was dismissed.
The finding recorded by the High Court was to the effect that the tenant is number entitled to the benefit of Sub section 4 of Section 20 of the Act.
Issues were framed on 3 3 78.
The suit was decreed exparte in the first instance but later the exparte decree was set aside at the instance of the tenant.
A revision filed by the landlord failed, whereupon he approached the Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition.
It is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that one of the companyditions upon which the exparte decree was set aside was the payment of rent due.
On that day, the tenant deposited a further sum of Rs.40/ to make up the deposit of the rent due.
Accordingly he dismissed the Eviction Petition.
At about the same time i.e., in 1985, he also filed a petition for reviewing the judgment dated 2 1 81 in Writ Petition No.
After remand the trial Court decreed the suit, in view of the fact that the only defence of the defendant based upon Section 20 4 of the Act stood negatived by the High Court.
5714 of 1985 in the High Court of Allahabad questioning the Order of revision.
The appellant then filed Writ Petition No.
The matter arises under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972.
He says that it was so deposited within the time granted.
Both the writ petition and the review petition were dismissed in limine on 21 5 1985 against which the present appeal has been preferred.
Tenant is the appellant.
8555/79 and remanded the matter to the trial Court for disposal of the eviction petition according to law in the light of the finding recorded by it.
