RAMCHANDRA Vs. RADHESHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -landlord is a retired Government servant has not been disputed during the arguments. Evidence discloses that he is living in a tenanted accommodation.

(2.) 1982 MPWN 47) and Mst. Hazra Begum v. Gulam Khan (1969 MPU Note 51) relied on. To say the least the appellant has been negligent, that it would be unfair and unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case to interfere with the discretion of the Courts below striking out the defence of the tenant -appellant for non -compliance of section 13 (1) of the Act. The matter has already been pending for the last 10 years and if the delay is condoned and the matter remanded the suit will not terminate before the end of the century. Ratio of the decision in Subhash Mehta v. Sandhya Chaudhary (AIR 1990 SC 1009) which no doubt was a case of two widows successor -landlord would support this view. Shri Saxena's prayer for condoning delay for not making deposit as required under section 13(1) of the Act and setting aside the order striking out the defence of tenant - defendant against eviction is rejected.