IQBAL AND COMPANY Vs. ABDUL RAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a very hard case and as the saying goes -hard case makes bad law-. Both these revisions can be dealt with under a common order. The respondent herein filed H.R.C. No. 3328 of 1978 for eviction of the revision petitioner on three grounds, namely: 1. He, wilfully defaulted in payment of rent for the period from 1st July, 1977 to 31st October, 1978

(2.) FOR personal occupation and

(3.) MR. Habibullah Basha, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord would contend that assuming for a moment that the order passed on 22nd August, 1980 is a wrong one which requires the revision-petitioner to deposit the amount as ordered on or before 5th September, 1980, the revision petitioner took a grave risk in filing an application at the 11th hour, expecting the Court to grant time. It is unlike the general cases, under Rent Control Act, Deposit of the amount is ordered under section 11 (1) of the Act a sine qua non for the entertainment of the appeal. Therefore, mere willingness or readiness would not suffice. Nor again, can it be said that the subsequent deposits made during the pendency of the appeal would have the effect of militating against the order of eviction. This is a case in which the conduct of the revision-petitioner lacks bona fides in every sense of the term. First he would allow rent control application to be ordered ex parte, then have) the ex parte order set aside, pay a sum of Rs. 3,500 and thereafter, even when directed to pay on or before 5th September, 1980 except mere assertion about his readiness or willingness, fails to deposit any amount. Therefore, the Court rightly refused to grant extension. As pointed out by the appellate authority, if the tenant was eager to avoid eviction, nothing would have been easier than to deposit the amount because such a deposit is essential even for preferring an appeal and preferring of the appeal is the only ground that was stated in the affidavit in support of the request for the extension of time. Where, therefore, the Courts below have rightly refused and exercised the discretion in favour of the revision-petitioner, this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere.