It is, therefore, manifest that in the instant case a deposit of the rent and the arrears along with interest had actually been made before the first date of hearing to the knowledge of the Court and the Court had acknowledged the fact of the deposit of the amount.
179.48 paise on 4 5 67.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 4 11 1976 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Rev. No.
Hence this appeal.
In order to understand the point of law involved in this case, it may be necessary to give a brief resume of the facts leading to the appeal.
Thereafter the appellant filed a revision before the High Court which, as already indicated, had a varied career before the High Court and was ultimately decided against the appellant and in favour of the applicant respondent The three Judges of the High Court who heard the case have been greatly influenced by the decision of this Court in Shri Vidya Prachar Trust case supra .
Notice of this application for 11th May 1967 was issued on the 22nd March, 1967 and was actually served on the defendant appellant on 22nd April, 1967.
The rent be deposited at the responsibility of the petitioner and after that numberice be issued on payment of P.F. for the respondent for 11 5 67.
Even before this date when the amount was actually deposited by the appellant, the Rent Controller had passed the following order Present Sh.
Papers are filed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
the two Judges differed from each other and the case was referred to a third Judge, namely, Mittal, J. who agreed with Pandit, J. and dismissed the petition.
179.48 being the rent along with interest due.
Yogeshwar Prasad and Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Respondent.
P. L. Kakkar has been informed that the petitioner has deposited Rs.
It appears that the first date of the hearing of the application was 11th May, 1967 on which date the Rent Controller made the following order Present Mr. Vijay Pal Singh for the petitioner Mr. P. L. Kakkar for the respondent The respondents companynsel Sh.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 4th November, 1976 dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant before the High Court.
Sher Singh gave an application on 21 3 1967 under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act against the defendant appellant for eviction from the shop on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of the rent and arrears for the period 9 11 1965 to 8 3 1967.
80 of 1977.
Suresh Sethi Amicus Curiae for the Appellant.
When the case went before the Division Bench companysisting of Pandit and B. S. Dhillon, JJ.
on the 29th April, 1967 the defendant appellant made an application before the Senior Sub Judge who was also the Rent Controller for depositing a sum of Rs.
Shiv Narain Petitioner .
The amount was however deposited before the Rent Controller on the 4th May, 1967.
It appears that the appellant defendant was a tenant of a shop belonging to one Sher Singh and was situated in Gurgaon Cantonment.
Again, on the first date of hearing i.e. 11th May, 1967 the Rent Controller informed companynsel for the applicant respondent that a sum of Rs.
Thereafter, the appellant went up in appeal to the District Judge who was the Appellate Authority under the Act which differed from the view taken by the Rent Controller and by his order dated 22nd February, 1968 having held that the deposit was valid dismissed the application filed by the respondent for evicting the appellant.
Thereafter a revision was filed to the High Court which was remanded to the District Judge for deciding the case afresh, and particularly having regard to the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Vidya Prachar Trust v. Pandit Basant Ram l .
179.48 had been deposited.
Despite these facts, the Rent Controller held in its order dated the 2nd December, 1967 that the deposit was number made in accordance with the proviso to section 13 2 i of the Act, and, therefore, the appellant being a defaulter the application was allowed and ejectment was ordered.
226 of 1971.
It is, therefore, clear that the applicant respondent 1 was apprised clearly of the fact that the amount in question had actually been deposited and was at his disposal and he companyld withdraw the same from the Court of the Rent Controller whenever he liked.
