DAYAL DAS Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision applications are directed against an order passed by the learned Munsif, north Lucknow, under section 7-B, U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III of 1947 ). The order relates to a house situate on No. 1, Jagat Narain Road and occupied by Dayal das, a refugee from Sind. The house was allotted to the aforesaid tenant on 29-4-1949, under section 7 (1) (a) of the Act. On 30-9-1950, Srimati Sushila Devi, purporting to act as a landlord applied to the learned Munsif for issue of notice to the tenant under Sub-section 3 of Section 7-B calling upon him to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1625/-at the rate of Rs. 125/- p. m. from 29-8-1949, till 29-9-1950. The application contained the particulars enjoined by Sub-section (2) (a ). It was verified in the ordinary way and the learned Munsif issued the notice prayed for. The rent was not deposited within the time specified. The tenant, however, attempted to file objections regarding the maintainability of the application by Sushila Devi and the rate of rent claimed by her but, in view of the proviso to Sub-section (7)which says :

(2.) ON behalf of Dayal Das, an attempt is made by his learned counsel to persuade me to look into the grounds of objection and to determine whether or not the rate of rent claimed is the proper rent and further whether Sushila Devi is the real landlord. It has already been stated that the condition upon which the tenant's objections against the notice could be entertained has not been complied with inasmuch as the sum of Rs. 1625/- was not deposited by him. It is, therefore, not possible to consider the objections on merits.

(3.) ON behalf of the landlord it is contended that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to grant extension of time for payment of Rs. 1625/-beyond the period specified in the notice and further in view of Sub-section (5) which mandatorily enjoins that on the failure of the tenant to make the deposit or to file objections, the Court must make an order for payment by the tenant of the costs of the application his omission to do so is unwarranted. The argument, in my opinion, is sound. Failure to make the deposit of the amount mentioned in the notice renders a tenant's objections unentertainable and that being so, it must be held that Sub-section (5) came into operation. That sub-section provides :