SURAJPRASAD MATAPRASAD Vs. GANPATRAI CHATURBHUJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision No. 204 of 1965.

(2.) THE applicant Ganpatrai in Civil Revision No. 204 of 1965 has filed a suit against Surajprasad, the applicant in this civil revision petition, for -recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,080 and for eviction of Surajprasad from a house. THE plaintiff has alleged that the monthly rent payable in respect of ose accommodation is Rs. 30 and that Surajprasad has been in arrears of rent from 4th December 1960.

(3.) IT will be seen that under sub-section (1) of section 13 no order of the Court is necessary for the making of a deposit or a payment. The tenant has to make the deposit or the payment within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application, allow in that behalf. Where the tenant does not ask for time for being allowed to make the deposit or payment, there can be no justification whatever for the Court to grant him any time for the purpose. Here, the tenant Surajprasad failed to deposit or pay the amount as required by section 13 (1). He did not ask for any time for being allowed to make the deposit or payment. His plea is that he is not required to make any deposit or payment as he has already spent on repairs of the house a sum exceeding that he is required to pay or deposit under section 13(1). IT is this plea of the tenant which the lower Court should have investigated into while considering the application of the landlord Ganpatrai under section 13 (6) for striking out Surajprasad's defence against eviction. IT is plain from sub-section (6) that an order striking out the defence can be made only if it is found that the tenant has failed to deposit or pay the amount as required by section 13.