BHANUPRATAP AGRAWAL Vs. RUPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, preferred by the plaintiff (landlord) against an order dated 21 -1 -77 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior, in civil Suit No. 189 -A/72, whereby the deposit made with the Rent Controlling Authority by the defendant (tenant) has been held to be invalid yet 15 days' time has been given to deposit rent upto the date of the order in the Court and defendant has been further directed to go on depositing future rent after that date.

(2.) THE facts essential for the purposes of this revision are asunder: - -

(3.) SHRI K. L. Mangal, learned counsel for the plaintiff applicant, has contended that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to grant time to the defendant to deposit rent because no prayer to that effect was made in his application dated 9 -10 -72. Shri N.K. Jain, learned counsel for the defendant -non -applicant, argued in support of the impugned order and contended that (i) the application raises a dispute within the meaning of section 13(2) of the Act; (ii) the absence of a prayer to give time to deposit rent did not deprive the trial Court of the power to grant time; (iii) that the exclusive jurisdiction was with the Rent Controlling Authority to adjudicate upon the question whether the deposit under section 25 of the Act read with section 26 thereof operates as valid discharge of liability of the defendant for making payment of the rent to the plaintiff (landlord); and, (iv) that no interference in revision should be made in view of the fact that the case does not fall within any of the provisos introduced in section 115(1) by the Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976.