High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sita Ram Chhabra v. D.J. - WRIT - A No. 7111 of 1981  RD-AH 5739 (14 November 2005)
(Court No. 51)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7111 of 1981
Sri Sitaram Chhabra Vs. District Judge, Pilibhit and another
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Initially landlord respondent No. 2 Smt Parvati Devi was represented by Sri G.P.Mathur learned counsel (as his lordship then was). After elevation of his lordship notices were issued to the respondent No.2. Thereafter fresh notices were directed to be issued through order dated 15.7.2003. Service of notice is sufficient under Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the High Court Rules as per office report dated 11.11.2005, still no one has appeared on behalf of landlady respondent No. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This is tenant's writ petition. Landlady respondent No. 2 filed suit for eviction against tenant petitioner before JSCC, Pilibhit. The suit was decreed on 17.7.1980. Against the said judgment and decree, tenant petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 26 of 1980. Revisional Court/ District Judge, Pilibhit through order dated 18.4.1981, struck off the defence of tenant petitioner for delay in deposit of monthly rent during the pendency of the revision (Judgment of the trial court has not been filed however learned counsel for the petitioner states that the trial court had refused to strike off the defence).
Tenant asserted that rate of rent was Rs. 45/- per month. Trial court found the rate of rent to be Rs. 80/- per month.
Firstly it is highly doubtful as to whether defence of the tenant can be struck off by the revisional court hearing revision under section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act for non-deposit of rent during pendency of the revision. During pendency of revision tenant is required to deposit rent or any other amount, which may be directed to be paid as a condition of the stay order.
Even otherwise complete deposit had been made. Revisional court held that there was delay in deposit as several months rent was deposited together.
In any view of the matter tenant petitioner fully deserves condonation of delay in making the deposit. Accordingly I am of the opinion that judgment and order passed by the District Judge dated 18.4.1981 is erroneous in law.
Writ petition is allowed judgment and order dated 18.4.1981 is set-aside and revisional court is directed to decide the revision on merit as expeditiously as possible.
It is directed that during pendency of revision, petitioner's eviction shall remain stayed on the condition that with effect from December 2005 onward petitioner deposits rent/ damages for use and occupation at the Rate of Rs. 500/- per month before the revisional court by 7th of each succeeding month. It is further directed that entire decreetal amount at the decreed rate due till 30.11.2005 shall also be deposited by 31.1.2006 before the revisional court. It is needless to say that if any amount has already been deposited then it shall be adjusted from the decreetal amount required to be deposited. All the amounts deposited by the tenant as aforesaid shall at once be paid to the landlord.
In case of two defaults stay order shall stand automatically vacated. This order has been passed in view of the Supreme Court authority reported in Atma Ram Properties Vs. Federal Motors 2005(1) SCC 705.
Petitioner is directed to file certified copy of this order before the revisional court within a month from today. On filing of the certified copy, revisional court shall at once issue notice to the respondent No.2 landlady Smt Parvati.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.