1 On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court to pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made and shall thereafter companytinue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.
Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit and passed an order of eviction.
The landlord filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent as well as nuisance.
The first appellate Court affirmed trial Courts decree.
Therefore, the appellant is number entitled to the protection of Section 12 i a , 12 iii and 13 v as has been laid down in 1989 M.R.C.J. 155.
Admittedly, the tenant neither deposited the rent within the stipulated period number any application was moved for extension of time to deposit the same.
Admittedly, there had been two defaults i.e. rent for the month of November 1985 and rents for the months of May and June 1988.
The finding of the companyrt of appeal in this behalf is The appellant has number moved application before the companyrt below for companydoning the delay in depositing of rent, by this Court the relevant application had already been dismissed.
The appellant herein is the landlord of premises bearing No.
505, Ward No.
With the companysent of the parties, we dispose of this appeal finally at this stage.
Leave granted.
It is against the said judgment and order that the appellant landlord is in appeal before us.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
15, Arif Nagar, Bhopal, whereas the respondent herein is the tenant.
The High Court purported to have recorded that the appellant had applied for companydonation of delay in payment of rent on 5.2.1990 in relation to default to deposit rent for the month of November 1985 and for the months of May and June 1988.
The High Court in its impugned judgment did number point out as to how the companyrt of appeal companymitted an error of records in arriving at the said finding.
