however companysidering the question as to what was the proper order to be passed in the petition the learned judge thought as the defendants had admittedly deposited by then all amounts as ordered by the companyrt previous to the order of june 2 1969 and also deposited the monthly rent at the rate of rs.
on the date fixed for striking out defences and fixing the date for ex parte hearing the defendants did number appear number did they appear on the 5th and 6th of august when the suit was fixed for hearing.
the defendants did number even apply for setting aside the ex parte decree giving proper reasons for their number appearance on the 5th and 6th august.
on 30th january 1968 a numberice to quit was given to the defendants and the numberice was served on 1st february 1968.
there was a further prayer that in default of the deposit of the amount the defences of the defendants may be ordered to be struck off.
308/ per month in accordance with the earlier order.
the defendants failed to deposit arrears of rent and the suit came up for orders on 15th july 1969.
they went on appeal against the ex parte decree.
7000/ on their application dated 4th august 1969 they did number take any further steps and so the numberice was dismissed.
14607/ within one month and to companytinue to deposit rs.
as far as we are able to see the only reason which persuaded the learned judge to companye to this extraordinary conclusion was that under s.11 4 of the act the only order that companyld be passed was an order directing after fixing the interim standard rent to be deposited within a particular time that if the tenant fails to companyply with any order made as aforesaid within such time as may be allowed by it he shall number be entitled to appear in or defend the suit except with leave of the companyrt which leave may be granted subject to such terms and companyditions as the court may specify and the section did number authorise the court to strike of the defences straightway.
the defendant did number deposit the amount ordered by the companyrt and on 24th february 1969 the plaintiffs applied to the companyrt praying for a numberice to be issued to the defendants to show cause why they should number deposit the aggregate amount of rent and further rent of rs.
upon this application a numberice was issued to the defendants and on 2nd june 1969 an order was made requiring the defendants to deposit rs.
defendant number 2 to pay rs 30/ to the plaintiffs.
however on the 4th august the defendants had made an application stating that on proper calculation the amount of arrears of rent would companye to rs.
an appeal was filed before the appellate bench of the small causes companyrt against the ex parte decree and it was dismissed.
on 20th february 1968 they filed an application under s.11 of the bombay rents hotel and lodging house rates companytrol act 1947 for fixation of standard rent.
308/per month to be paid beginning from february 15 1969.
7065/ and praying for extension of time for deposit of this amount.
13090/ as rent due up to the end of december 1968 and interim standard rent of rs.
385/ a month.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated the august 1972 of the high companyrt of judicature at bombay in special civil application number 2778 of 1969.
the defendants were allowed to deposit the amount without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the parties and numberice was ordered to be issued to the plaintiffs the defendants deposited the amount but did number take out and serve the numberice on the plaintiffs and the numberice was ultimately discharged for want of prosecution on 19th september 1969.
385/ per month from 1st august 1969 till the disposal of the suit.
it was further ordered that in default of the deposit the defences of the defendants were to be struck off and that the suit should be placed for ex parte orders on 15th july 1969.
the defendants were absent on that day and the suit was adjourned to 5th august 1969.
on an application filed before the high companyrt a learned single judge set aside the decree passed by the small causes companyrt on 6th august 1969 as also .
though they were permitted to deposit rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 411 of 1973.
14607/ in companyrt within a month and companytinue to deposit rs.308 per month as per order passed by scrutiny companyrt in default numberice absolute and defences to be struck off and suit b fixed for ex parte hearing on 15th july 1969.
it was thereafter that the suit was filed in march 1965.
on the 5th august the suit was again adjourned to 6th and on that day an ex parte decree for possession recovery of arrears of rent and companyts was passed.
urmila kapoor and miss kamlesh for respondents 1 and the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by alagiriswami j. this is an appeal against the judgment of the high companyrt of bombay in an application under article 227 of the companystitution by which it number only set aside the ex parte decrees passed by the companyrt of small causes bombay in a suit for eviction and rent but dismissed the suit itself.
he therefore thought the order passed by the companyrt on june 2 1969 was illegal and without jurisdiction and every step that was taken by the companyrt subsequently must be companysidered to by without jurisdiction and illegal.
on 23rd numberember 1968 the suit came up before a judge of the small causes companyrt and after hearing the parties he made an order requiring the defendants to deposit rs.
it was further ordered that in default of the defendants depositing the amount the plaintiffs were at liberty to follow the companysequential remedy under s.11 4 of the act.
the decree passed by the appellate bench and also dismissed the suit.
it was alleged that the defendant were in arrears of rent from 1st march 1966 and that the rent was rs.
the facts are as follows the appellants plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants respondents for recovery of possession of the property leased to them as also rent and mesne profits in march 1968.
s. nariman and b. r. agarwala for the appellant.
