BHANWER LAL Vs. PANNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 1-1-1964 the plaintiff, Pannalal, as a landlord filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 330.00. The defendant Bhanwarlal received the writ of summons on 14-1-1964. The case was fixed for 10.2.64. The defendant did not appear when the case was called In the earlier part of the day. An ex-parte order was passed against the defendant but on the same day the defendant appeared and filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. The Court allowed the same and the case was fixed for filing written statement of the defendant on 22-2-64. The defendant filed his written statement. He also filed an application for extending time to deposit arrears of rent as one month from the date of receipt of summons had already expired. A similar application was repeated on 29.2-64 wherein he gave his reasons for his inability to arrange for money. The Court did not pass any orders on the applications. They were fixed for 9-3-64. But before that date, on 3-3-64, the defendant deposited Rs. 330.00 in the Court for payment as rent after taking orders of the Court. On 9-3-64, when the applications came up for hearing, the Court struck out the defence under section 13 (vi) of the accommodation Control Act. Aggrieved by that order, the defendant has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) It is clear from the perusal of the order dated 9-3-64 that the Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction on a wrong assumption. Sec. 13 (i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act enjoins that within one month of the service of the writ of summons or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to, allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid............ The learned Civil Judge thought that the application for granting time should be made within one month. The section nowhere lays down that the application should be made within a month. The application can be made at any time. One month's period mentioned in section 13 (1) only governs payment to be made after the service of the writ of summons. Not only the plain meaning of the section does not allow such interpretation, but that is also consistent with reasons. A discretion is given to the Court to extend the time. That discretion may be exercised after considering all the circumstances of the case. The Court has to consider whether the defendant was trying to protract the litigation or there was sufficient cause for not paying the amount in time.

(3.) In the order dated 9-3-64, the learned Civil Judge has started with an assumption that the Court cannot extend time after lapse of one month and that his hands are tied down. It it not understood how the Court gave such Interpretation.