HARADWAR SINGH Vs. SATYENDRA KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The two Petitioners are tenants of a house situate in the city of Banaras, and the 1st respondent is the owner of the house. The Petitioners took possession of the house as tenants in September 1950, It is said that in some months they sent rent to the 1st respondent at the rate of Rs. 44/8/-per month, but the respondent refused to accept the rent. The reason was that, according to the respondent, the rent of the house was fixed at Rs. 100/- per month. After sending some money orders, the petitioners kept quiet with the result that no amount of rent has so far been paid at all by the petitioners to the respondent for a period of more than six years now. 2. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the agent of the respondent was instructed to file a suit for the recovery of rent against the Petitioners, and the agent took expenses for the purpose but never filed the suit and kept the landlord under the belief that the suit had been filed and was pending. Whatever it may be no proceedings were taken by the landlord against the petitioners till he filed an application under Section 7B of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act in the court of the City Munsif, Banaras, sometime before September 1955. Notice was issued to the petitioners and it appears that the 15 days' time allowed for filing objections was to expire on the 1st October 1955. The petitioners filed objections on the 1st October 1955 but before doing that they made an application on the 30th September 1955 with a draft of a security bond asking the court's permission to file the bond in terms of the draft, after having it executed and registered. The order passed on this application was that it should be listed along with the application under Section 7B of the Act. Some date in December was then fixed, but the case was not taken up, and the application came up for hearing on the 13th April 1956 on which date the court passed the impugned order. It says that the petitioners (opposite parties in the court below) should deposit the amount of the claim made by the landlord in cash by the 22nd April 1956 and that he was not inclined to permit the Petitioners to furnish security for the payment of the amount. The present petition Was filed on the 20th April 1956 praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Munsif, mentioned above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to refuse to accept the security of property, which was sought to be furnished by the Petitioners, and that it is at the option of the tenant either to deposit cash or furnish security but the security should be a good one for the amount claimed. The next contention is that the proviso appears to make it incumbent on the tenant either to deposit the full amount of claim in cash or to furnish security to the satisfaction of the court before he is permitted to file an objection and, as the period provided for filing objections is 15 days from the date of service of notice of the application made under Section 7-B, the restriction put on the right of the tenant to hold the land as a tenant is an unreasonable restriction and it contravenes the Provisions of Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution.