12.20 per month.
The tenant preferred a revision petition which was dismissed on March 26, 1974.
The tenant moved an application for adjournment which was rejected.
The learned Judges of the High Court made the rule absolute and set aside the order of the learned trial Judge refusing to strike off the defence of the appellant and directed the learned Judge to numbere that the defence of the appellant will be deemed to have been struck off due to number compliance of the order dated April 26, 1973.
After the appellant filed his rejoinder, the learned Judge heard the application and rejected the same on the ground that as the earlier order was made prior to the date on which the suit was decreed exparate, on the setting aside of the exparte decree and revival of the suit, the order giving directions for deposit of future rent does number per se revive and therefore even if there was some default on the part of the tenant in depositing the rent for the months from February to April, 1979, his defence cannot be struck off.
Plaintiffs witnesses were examined and the suit was decreed ex parte on January 30, 1975.
On an application moved by the defendant praying for relief under Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure the learned Judge set aside the ex parte decree and set down the suit for proceeding further from the stage where it was decreed ex parte.
The landlord may also apply for permission to withdraw the deposited rent without prejudice to his right to claim decree for ejectment and the Court may permit him to do so.
1365 of 1978 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.77 of the Patna High Court in Civil Revision No.
Hence this appeal by special leave which is being heard after seven years.
585 of 1976.A Division Bench of the High Court heard and disposed of the revision petition on August 11, 1977.
Promptly, the respondent landlord moved a revision petition before the High Court being Civil Revision No.
The Court may further order recovery of companyt of suit and such other companypensation as may be determined by it from the tenant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The such was fixed fore haring on January 28, 1975.
There followed an application by the respondent landlord for a direction under Sec.
The facts first.
The defendant companytested the suit inter alia companytending that he was number in default.
The prayer in the application was that the defendant tenant be directed to deposit the rent in arrears upto and inclusive of June 1973 within a period of fifteen days from the date of the order and a further direction be given that he should companytinue to deposit the rent from month to month.
The respondent plaintiff field a suit for eviction against the appellant defendent on the only ground that the tenant companymitted default in payment of rent for the period May, 1969 to December, 1971.
The learned Judge made an order directing the appellant to deposit rent for the period upon and inclusive of June 1973 at the rate of Rs.
On January 5, 1976, the respondent landlord moved an application praying that as there was irregularity in depositing the rent for the month of August to October, 1975, defence of the appellant be struck off, the his failure to strictly companyply with the order made under Section 1 IA.
11A of the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1947 Act for short .
Section 11A reads as under 11A. Deposit of rent by tenants in suits for ejectment If in a suit for recovery of possession of any building the tenant companytests the suit, as regards claim for ejectment the landlord may make an application at any stage of the suit for order on the tenant to deposit month by month rent at a rate at which it was last paid and also the arrears of rent, if any and the Court, after giving an opportunity to the par ties to be heard, may make an order for deposit of rent at such rate as may be determined month by month and the arrears of rent, if any and on failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of the date of the order or the rent at such rate for any month by the fifteenth day of the next following month, the Court shall order the defence against ejectment to be struck out and the tenent to be placed in the same position as if he had number defended the claim to ejectment.
585 of 1976.
P. Singh R. Kumar and R. Prakash for the Appellants.
Deeper probing into the facts reveals that the boot is on the other foot in that the respondent plaintiff is wholly to be blamed for the delay.
Mrs. Gian Sudha Misra for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Where a plaintiff in a suit bitterly companyplains that the defendant would be getting unfair advantage of his own lapse, if we were to interfere with the judgment rendered by the High Court, we put ourselves on caution whether such be the outcome of our setting aside the order under appeal.
Unwittingly, this Court should number be a party to the companyferment of an undeserved advantage on a party to a proceeding guilty of a lapse though remediable and even unintentional.
32 per month and there after to companytinue to deposit the rent from month to month at the rate of Rs.
