(1.) THIS order shall govern the two C.R.P.NPD.Nos.1095 and 1096 of 2006 which challenge two Judgments of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, VII Court of Small Causes made in R.C.A.Nos.846 of 2002 and 133 of 2004 respectively. These two RCAs arose from two orders of the Rent Controller viz., XIV Court of Small Causes made in R.C.O.P.Nos.406 of 2001 and 1265 of 2003 respectively. The first R.C.O.P.No.406 of 2001 was filed by the landlord seeking eviction on the ground of willful default. The second R.C.O.P.No.1265 of 2003 was filed by the tenant seeking deposit of the rental arrears in Court. The Rent Controller while ordering eviction in the first RCOP, dismissed the second RCOP. Aggrieved against the said orders, the tenant preferred appeals referred to above and has suffered dismissal of those appeals, against which these two revisions have been brought forth by the tenant.
(2.) THE Court heard the learned counsel on either side.
(3.) ADDED further the counsel that when there was rental payment every month, when the matter is pending, there was refusal to receive the rents. There arose the necessity first for sending the rents through money order for a period of ten months. Since it was continuously refused, there arose the necessity for filing R.C.O.P.No.1265 of 2003 for depositing the rents from March 2003 to July 2003. Under such circumstances, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case would clearly indicate that there was no default much less willful default. As the tenant has taken all steps for making payment, when there was evasion on the part of the landlord, he could not be blamed for any default on the part the tenant. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Brahmanand vs. Kaushalya Devi and another reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1198.