Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2006
  6. /
  7. January

Inder Datt Sharma vs Ist Addl. District Judge And Anr.

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|31 August, 2006

JUDGMENT / ORDER

JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner filed an S.C.C. Suit No. 7 of 1993 for a decree of ejectment of the defendant-respondent No. 2 from House No. 272, Chowki Gate, Firozabad and recovery of Rs. 2946.50p as arrears of rent besides arrears of water tax etc. from him on 27.3.1993. Written statement was filed by respondent No. 2 on 4.5.1994, inter alia, that he had remitted the rent to the petitioner for the period 15.1.1998 to 14.1.1990 through money order but the same having been refused by him, he was left with no option but to file an application under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 17/90, Ambika Prasad v. Inder Datt Sharma. The application was allowed and the respondent was depositing the rent in Court in the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 17/90 pending in the Court of the then Munsif, Firozabad. It was also stated that he had not committed any default in the payment of rent. The petitioner moved an application under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. for striking off the defence of the respondent on the ground that since he had not complied with the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C, therefore, he was not entitled to its benefits. Objection was filed by the respondent reiterating that he had deposited the rent under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No. 17/90 and as such he is entitled to the benefit of Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
3. It appears from the record that respondent No. 2 moved an application/representation dated 10.2.1998 under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. before the trial court praying that the same be decided first before deciding the application of the petitioner under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. and the delay, if any, be condoned. The petitioner filed objection alleging that the defendant-respondent has complied with neither the first part nor the second part of Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. nor he had shown any cogent and convincing reason for non-compliance thereof.
4. The trial court by order dated 4.5.1998 rejected the representations filed by the respondent under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. for deciding the same first before deciding the application of the petitioner under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. for striking off the defence of the defendant and condone the delay, if any. The trial court rejected the aforesaid representations of the respondent holding that respondent No. 2 had neither complied with first part nor with second part of the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. nor sufficient cause had been shown by him for non-compliance thereof. It was also held that the deposits were not made within the time in S.C.C. Suit No. 7/93. The finding of the trial court is as under:
eSaus mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds rdksZa dks lquk o i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; dk voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g nfkZr gksrk gS fd ;g y?kqokn oknh }kjk izfroknh ds fo#) fdjk;k csn[kyh gsrq fnukad 17-3-1993 dks lafLFkr fd;k x;k gSA mDr dsl esa izfroknh U;k;ky; esa fnukad 11-3-1994 dks mifLFkr gks x;k vr% izLrqr dsl esa 11-3-1994 lquokbZ dh izFke frfFk ekuh tk;sxhA izfroknh }kjk okn dh izFke frfFk ij vFkkZr fnukad 11-3-1994 dks leLr Lohd`fr fdjk;k ,oa C;kt vkfn tek dj fn;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk ijUrq izfroknh }kjk okn dh izFke frfFk ij leLr okftc fdjk;k fnukad 11-3-1994 dks izLrqr dsl esa tek ugha fd;k x;k cfYd 18-8-1994 dks fofo/k okn la [email protected] esa fnukad 15-6-1993 ls fnukad 14-8-1994 rd dk fdjk;k vFkkZr 14 ekg dk fdjk;k vadu 1]190-00 : tek fd;k x;k gS blh izdkj izfroknh }kjk izLrqr dsl esa okn nk;j gksus dh frfFk ls 19-7-1996 rd dk dksbZ fdjk;k tek ugha fd;k x;k cfYd 15-6-1993 ls 16-7-1996 rd dk fdjk;k fofo/k okn la [email protected] esa tek fd;k x;k gS tcfd mDr vof/k esa izLrqr y?kqokn yfEcr Fkk vr% fofo/k okn la [email protected] esa izLrqr y?kqokn nk;j gksus ds Ipkr tek fd;s x;s fdjk;s dk dksbZ ykHk izfroknh ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS vr% izfroknh yxkrkj fnukad 19-7-1996 rd vknsk 15] fu;e 5] lhihlh ds izkfo/kkuksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k gs ,oa vknsk 15] fu;e 5] lhihlh ds mDr izkfo/kkuksa dk ikyu fd, tkus dk dksbZ i;kZIr dkj.k gh izfroknh }kjk crk;k x;k gS vkSj u gh izfroknh }kjk le; ls dksbZ izfrosnu gh izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
5. While allowing the application of the petitioner for striking off the defence of the respondent, the trial court has held that the respondent had not deposited the rent in time. Moreover, he has not deposited the rent by 11.3.1994, which was the first date of hearing. It is also submitted that the representation of the defendant dated 10.2.1998 was made beyond time which ought to have been submitted by him on 11.3.1994, hence the representation was time barred. The Court noted that apart from the tender on the file, from the record also it is revealed that the respondent had not been depositing the rent month to month within time and that he had deposited the rent for the period from 15.6.1993 to 14.8.1994 amounting to Rs. 1190 while the rent for the period 15.6.1993 to 16.7.1996 had been paid in Misc. Case No. 17/90 and from 17.7.1996 to 15.2.1998 remained unpaid including which the respondent had to deposit Rs. 2100.
6. The aforesaid deposits itself shows that the respondent was in arrears of rent even during the pendency of the suit as he had neither filed any application for condonation of delay nor acceptance of rent for the aforesaid period within time. Even thereafter he had not deposited full rent as he only deposited the rent for the period 16.7.1997 to 15.2.1998 on 9.2.1998 at the rate of Rs. 595.
7. Aggrieved, the respondent filed Civil Revision No. 35 of 1998 wherein the ground taken by the revisionist-respondent was that he had been depositing the rent under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and as such if there was any technical default the same was liable to be condoned and his defence could not have been struck off under Rule 15(4), C.P.C.
8. The revisional court allowed the revision vide order dated 6.9.2000 and remanded the case to the trial court for decision afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties.
9. Even if the fault of the respondent to make deposits in Misc. Case No. 17/90 under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is condoned on the ground of technical error still it is evident from the record that he had not been depositing the rent in time even thereafter month to month as provided under the Act.
10. It is also evident that the respondent in his grounds of revision has not assailed the finding of the trial court regarding non-payment of rent even after the suit was filed. There is a clear finding recorded by the trial court that the respondent had defaulted twice for months together and had deposited the rent after a year or so. The finding of the trial court while deciding/rejecting the representations of the respondent is as under:
EkSaus mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dks lquk o i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; dk voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g nfkZr gksrk gS fd ;g y?kqokn oknh }kjk fnukad 27-3-1993 dks fdjk;k csn[kyh gsrq lafLFkr fd;k x;k gSA izfroknh U;k;ky; esa fnukad 11-3-1994 dks mifLFkr gks x;k gSA vr% izLrqr dsl esa 11-3-1994 dh lquokbZ dh izFke frfFk ekuh tk;sxhA izfroknh }kjk viuh izfrokn i= fnukad 4-5-1994 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vknsk 15] fu;e 5] lhihlh mi fu;e 2 ds vuqlkj izfroknh }kjk viuk izfrosnu okn dh izFke lquokbZ ds 10 fnu ds vUnj izLrqr fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk ijUrq tSlk fd mij of.kZr gS fd izLrqr dsl esa lquokbZ dh izFke frfFk fnukad 11-3-1994 Fkh ,oa izfroknh }kjk viuk izfrosnu fnukad 21-3-1994 rd izLrqr fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk tks fd izfroknh }kjk ugha fd;k x;k cfYd viuk izfrosnu fnukad 10-2-1998 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vr% izfroknh dk izfrosnu dky ckf/kr gS blds vfrfjDr i=koyh ij tks Vs.Mj miyC/k gS muls ;g nfkZr gksrk gS fd izfroknh }kjk izLrqr okn esa izfr ekg dk fdjk;k fnukad 19-7-1996 rd nk;j ugha fd;k x;k gS cfYd /kkjk 30 1] ,DV 13 lu~ 1972 ds vUrxZr tek fd;k x;k gS tks fd =qfViw.kZ gS izLrqr y?kqokn esa nk;j gksus ds ipkr izfroknh }kjk fookfnr lEifk dk fdjk;k nkf[ky djus esa dksbZ fcyec gqvk gksrk rks vknsk 15] fu;e 5 1] lhihlh ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj fdjk;k okftc gksus ds ,d lIrkg ipkr vius foyEc dks {kek djk;s tkus gsrq izfrosnu izLrqr fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk ijUrq izLrqr dsl esa u rks izfroknh }kjk viuk izfrosnu lquokbZ dh izFke frfFk ds 10 fnu ds vUnj gh izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA izfroknh }kjk vius izfrosnu esa ;g Hkh ugha crk;k x;k gS fd og fookfnr lEifk dk fdjk;k bl okn esa le; ls D;ksa tek ugha dj ldkA tks vk/kkj izkFkhZ izfroknh }kjk vius izfrosnu esa fdjk;k nsjh ls tek djus ds nkkZ;s gSa os I;kZIr ugha gSA izkFkhZ izfroknh dks y?kqokn nk;j gkssus ds ipkr fdjk;k y?kqokn esa tek djuk pkfg, Fkk u fd fofo/k okn esaA vr% y?kqokn esa nk;j gksus ds ipkr~ fofo/k okn la [email protected] esa tek fdjk;s dk dksbZ ykHk izfroknh bl dsl essa ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA izLrqr okn esa fnukad 16-7-1997 dks izfroknh }kjk 17-7-1996 ls 16-7-1997 rd fdjk;k vadu 1]020-00 tek fd;k x;k gSA izfroknh }kjk fnukad 17-7-1997 ls izfrekg dk fdjk;k tek ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh izR;sd ekg fdjk;k tek djus esa tks foyEc gqvk mlds fy, le; lhek esa dksbZ izfrosnu gh izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA blds ckn izfroknh }kjk fnukad 16-7-1997 ls 15-2-1998 rd dk fdjk;k 595-00 : fnukad 9-2-1998 dks tek fd;s x;s gSa] ;g fdjk;k Hkh le; ls vnk ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj tek djus esa izfrekg foyEc gqvk gSA
11. It appears that the revisonal court was misled by the statement of the respondent that he had been depositing the rent continuously in Misc. Case No. 17/90 under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 whereas from the record it is revealed as incorrect statement.
12. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.9.2000 is quashed. Consequences to follow. No order as to costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Inder Datt Sharma vs Ist Addl. District Judge And Anr.

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
31 August, 2006
Judges
  • R Tiwari