MAHENDRANATH Vs. NALINI VALLABHDAS SHAH MISS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgement suit instituted in the year 1976 has yet remained undecided while in between all this period there have been interim applications one after another for striking out the defence of the petitioner who claims tenancy under the respondent. In my opinion, having regard to all the features in proper context this is a fit case where interference is necessary even under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since there is an error apparent on the face of the record. To understand the thrust of the controversy only a few features need the stated. Reference to the prominent landmarks in the proceeding would make the situation clear.

(2.) The respondent herein filed judgement Suit Bearing Number R.A.E & R. Suit No. 337/1894 of 1976 against the petitioner on the ground of rental arrears being for more than six months and also on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. This suit was filed in the year 1976. Standard rent application was filed in the same year being No. 1496/SR of 1976. However, it was dismissed for default on 13th of July, 1981.

(3.) The record reveals that the respondent filed an application in the year 1978 in the trial Court suggesting that the petitioner has been in rental arrears to a vast extent. An order, therefore, was passed on 24th of April, 1978 calling upon the petitioner to deposit Rs. 33, 900/- within two months. This was calculated on the basis of monthly rent at Rs. 475/-. The petitioner admittedly did not deposit the said amounts as stipulated. Consequently, therefore, on 29th of June, 1978 the respondent filed an application purporting to be one under section 11(4) of the Bombay Rent Act for striking out the defence of the petitioner. This application was granted by the trial Court on 23rd of August, 1978. On 15th September, 1978 the petitioner applied with a prayer that he should be allowed to deposit the said amount. On 15th of November, 1978 the trial Court allowed the petitioner to deposit in all Rs. 37, 225/- as by that time rent upto the month of November 1978 had mounted to that amount. Admittedly the petitioner did deposit the entire amount within the stipulated period.