KEWAL KRISHAN Vs. DINANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THE appellant -landlord brought an application to evict the respondent -tenant from the premises on the ground of default in payment of rent for a long period commencing from November 16, 1965 inspite of the two decrees for recovery of rent having been passed earlier. The respondent -tenant's only plea in defence was a denial of the contract of tenancy or in other words, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The tenant did not, at any time, deny the non -payment of rent from November 16, 1965 nor did the tenant assert the deposit of rent before any authority as an alternative plea to the denial of appellant's title.

(3.) WE are unable to sustain the order of the High Court. Admittedly, there was a clear averment in the plaint by the appellant of non -payment of any rent by the respondent -tenant since November 16, 1965 despite two decrees for recovery of rent having been passed earlier against him there was no specific denial of this fact. Even otherwise, the respondent tenant did not plead payment of any rent to the appellant or its deposit before any authority. The question of framing an issue for inquiring into this fact which would be deemed to be admitted on the ground of non -traverse by the respondent did not, therefore, arise. Learned counsel for the respondent strenuously urged before us that the respondent -tenant is entitled to the protection of section 12(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 and that the respondent had in fact deposited arrears of rent within the meaning of section 12(i) of the Act.