GURBACHANSINGH Vs. VIMLABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-tenant, appellant herein, is escaping the decree of ejectment indeed by a hair's breadth.

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for the ejectment of defendant/appellant on the grounds allegedly available under clauses (a), (c), and (n) of Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for short). The two courts below have found the grounds under clauses (c) and (n) not to be available to the appellant. In so far as the ground under clause (a) is concerned, the trial Court held that the provisions of S. 13 were complied with. During the pendency of the landlord's appeal before the lower appellate Court, the tenant defaulted in making deposits pending appeal and hence the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal directing ejectment of the appellant, refusing him the benefit of protection against eviction u/S. 12(3), for his failure to comply with the provisions of S. 13 before the appellate Court below.

(3.) Having filed this appeal and having secured stay of execution of decree for ejectment, the appellant has also moved simultaneously with the filing of the appeal an application u/S. 13(1) of the Act read with S. 148 C.P.C. seeking extension of time in making the deposits pending appeal also praying for condonation of the delay. The appellant has deposited all the arrears up-to-date as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant at the bar. That statement has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.