LAXMANDAS CHELARAM Vs. HEMDAS HAUROMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These so revision applications were heard together since the matters arise out of the same suit and are allied in nature. The Revision petitioner in both these petitions is a tenant of a building. During the pendency of the suit for recovery of arrears of rent with possession the Court proceeded to direct deposit by the tenant in Court such amount as it considered proper as interim standard rent payable during the pendency of the suit in exercise of its power under Section 11 (4) of the Bombay Rents Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (Bombay Act No. LVII of 1947). Since the question in controversy turns on the construction of Section 11 (4) I may extract that sub-section here. Where at any stage of a suit for recovery of rent whether with or without a claim for possession of the premises the Court is satisfied that the tenant is withholding the rent on the ground that the rent is excessive and standard rent should be fixed the Court shall and in any other case if it appears to the Court that it is just and proper to make such an order the Court may make an order directing the tenant to deposit in Court forthwith such amount of rent as the Court considers to be reasonably due to the landlord. The Court may further make an order directing the tenant to deposit in Court monthly or periodically such amount as it considers proper as interim standard rent during the pendency of the suit. The Cour may also direct that if the tenant fails to comply with any such order within such time as may be allowed by it he shall not be entitled to appear in or defend the suit except with leave of the Court which leave may be granted subject to such terms and conditions as the Court may specify. There was a dispute as to the quantum of rent payable by the tenant to the landlord. Naturally for the purpose of Section 11 (4) the Court had to come to a decision one way or the other and it did by fixing the rent payable for the purpose of Section 11 (4) at Rs. 90/- per month and in addition directed payment of light charges of Rs. 10 per month. The amount due from 1-7-1976 to 1 was directed to be deposited after deducting the amount already deposited by the tenant. Future deposit at the same rates was also directed. This was by order dated 6-2-1980 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol. The tenant took up the matter in revision before the Court of the Extra Assistant Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol. This Revision Application No. 3 of 1980 was disposed of by the learned Judge. He held that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction he found no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Judge but extended the time for deposit by three months. Civil Revision Application No. 1874 of 1980 is against that order.

(2.) No reasons other than those indicated by the Extra Assistant Judge who dismissed Revision Application No. 3 of 1980 are necessary to dismiss this revision application. What amount should be directed to be deposited as standand rent must necessarily be a matter of estimate depending upon various factors available in the case and an assessment has rightly been made by the trial Judge which calls for no interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore that order of 6-2-1980 stands confirmed.

(3.) The real grievance of the petitioner which is raised in Civil Revision Application No. 1862 of 1980 arises from further developments. The order of 6-2-1980 while directing deposit did not lay down the consequences of failure or default. Nevertheless by an order dated 24-11-1980 on an application by the tenant to extend the time for deposit the Court passed an order on 24-11-1980. He has not cared to comply with the Courts order even though his revision application has been dismissed. He has not deposited the arrears of rent and electric charges as per Courts order and electric charges that fell due thereafter till October 1980. As he has failed to comply with the Courts order his defence has to be struck down and the application seeking time is hereby dismissed and the defence is hereby struck off. This direction to strike off the defence is under challenge in Civil Revision Application No. 1862 of 1980 and it is the propriety of that direction that I am concerned with in this revision petition.