DARSHAN LAL Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Darshan Lal who was a tenant of Shyam Sunder Lal. It has been found that Darshan Lal was in arrears of rent and that Shyam Sunder Lal served a notice of demand as also notice terminating the tenancy. The defendant not having vacated the premises and not having paid the rent, a suit for eviction of the defendant tenant was filed. Notice of the application was served on the tenant petitioner and the date fixed was 8-3-79. On that date an application was filed by the petitioner through Sri C. D. Jain, Advocate in which it was stated that 8-3-79 was the first date of hearing in the suit and the defendant was unable to file his written statement. It was further said in the application that, however, the tenant is depositing the entire alleged amount in the court under the provisions of law. The landlord had instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 900/-. The defendant had on 8-3-79 deposited a sum of Rs. 1450/- in the court. However, the learned counsel for the defendant later on stated under Order 10 rule 2 CPC whose certified copy has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the tenant had not made the deposit under section 20 (4) of the Act and he did not want the benefit of that section. In the written statement also in para 6 it was stated as follows ;-

(2.) THE courts below have passed a decree for ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits against the defendant.

(3.) IN the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order in so far as the eviction of the petitioner is concerned, is set aside. The parties will bear their own costs. Petition allowed.