ATMA RAM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 25.9.1981 and 16.9.1980 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) The predecessor of respondent Nos. 3 to 11 filed suit for eviction of the petitioner in the Court of Judge. Small Causes, Dehradun-respondent No. 2 on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent alleging that rent from 1.8.1969 to 31.1.1972 amounting to Rs. 210 remained unpaid despite service of notice of demand on the petitioner. The tenancy of the petitioner was also terminated by the same notice. The defence of the petitioner was lhat he has been paying rent to the plaintiff regularly and after the receipt of notice the entire arrears of rent were tendered on three different occasions in the presence of three different witnesses but the landlord refused to accept the same. Ultimately a sum of Rs. 224 (rent for 32 months) was sent on 4.4.1972 through money order but the same was also not accepted by the plaintiff. Thereafter the tenant remitted again a sum of Rs. 231 through another money order but that too was received back on refusal by the landlord. It was further alleged that the notice of termination of tenancy was illegal.

(3.) It appears that in the trial court after when both the parties had adduced their evidence, an application purporting to be under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. was moved by the plaintiff for striking off the defence of the petitioner on the ground that he had not deposited the monthly rent in time as contemplated under the said provisions. It further appears that no representation in writing was made on behalf of the petitioner explaining the delay which had occurred in making some of the monthly deposits but it was contended on his behalf that since the parties have already adduced evidence, the matter should be decided on merits and there has been no wilful default in making monthly deposits. The trial court struck off the defence of the petitioner holding that on account of the default committed in making monthly deposits in time, the defence of the defendant-petitioner was liable to be struck off and thereafter ignoring the evidence of the defendant altogether, the trial court on the basis of the plaintiffs evidence decreed the suit for eviction by the judgment dated 16,9.1980. The revision filed against the said judgment has also been dismissed by the respondent No. 1 by the order dated 25.9.1981.