DARYANUMAL Vs. SOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this petition for revision arises was filed by non -applicant No. 1 Sohanlal as landlord for ejectment and arrears of rent against non -applican No.2 Gangadas as a tenant, and the applicant Dary -anumal as defendant No. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Sohanlal filed an application under Section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act requesting the Court to order the defendants to de posit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/ -per month. On 28 -9 -59 the Court accordingly ordered the defendant to disposit Rs. 25/ - per month and the presant revision petition is directed against that order.

(2.) EARLIER , on 7 -7 -1958 the Court had passed a similar order and on failure of the defendants to deposit the amount, their defence was ordered to be struck off on 17 -10 -1958. The defendants applied for a review of the order and this application was allowed on 7 -1 -1959 and the order to make the deposit was set aside.

(3.) THE first contention on behalf of the applicant is that the order of the trial court, dated 7 -1 -1959, by which the earlier order requiring the deposit to be made was set aside, operates as res judicata and the Court had therefore no power to make a second order on 28 -9 -59 directing the deposit to be made. It will he noticed that when the order, dated 7 -7 -58 was passed, the Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act was in force and in Section 5 (1) (a) the words "rent deed" occured which had been interpreted to mean that the power could be exercised when the agreement was in writing. It was on this ground that the trial court set aside its former order, as no document in writing about the agreement to pay rent existed in the persent case. The words "rent deed" were substituted by the word '"agreement" by extension of Laws Act, 1958. It was after the amendment that a fresh application was made by the landlord under Section 5. This was allowed, as the Court had by then been given power to order deposit of rent in cases where the agreement was not in writing I do not find that the second order of the Court which was passed on the basis of new law could be held to be barred by the rule of res judicata.