MEHER SINGH Vs. KESHARDEO CHAMARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule arises out of a proceeding under Section 14(4) of the Rent Control Act of 1950. The ejectment suit was brought only on the ground of default. The suit was filed on July 7, 1953. It appears that on July 6, 1953, the rents of June, July and August, 1953, were deposited by the Defendant with the Rent Controller and there was actually no arrear, outstanding on the date of the suit although the Defendant had certainly committed certain technical defaults of two months' rent by making the relative deposits of rent with the Rent Controller beyond the prescribed time. On the date, when the learned Munsif passed his final order under Section 14(4) it appeared that the tenant had no arrears outstanding and, accordingly, he directed the tenant to deposit only current rents month by month within the fifteenth of the next succeeding month as required by Section 14(4) with the usual rider that, in case of default, the defence against ejectment will be struck off. Subsequently, there was default in complying with the above order for deposit of current rents and, upon the Plaintiff's prayer, the defence against ejectment was struck off. The tenant-Defendant then obtained the present Rule and his contentions are:

(2.) After giving the matter my best consideration I have been unable to accept any of the above contentions. As to the first it is enough to point out that Section 14(4) contains the significant phrase "if any" in relation to "the arrears of rent" thus contemplating cases where there may be no arrears outstanding. In such cases, the order under Section 14(4) must necessarily be for deposit of current rents only, month by month, within the fifteenth of the next succeeding month.

(3.) I, accordingly, reject the first submission of Mr. Biswas. As to the second also, it seems to me that the answer must be against the the tenant-Petitioner in view of the decision of this Court, in Dwarkin and Son, Ltd. v. Hari Singh,1954 58 CalWN 1012 T.S.R. Sarma v. Nagendra Bala, 1952 57 CalWN 1 where it was held that past technical defects would be sufficient for purposes of Section 12(1)(i) and thus for purpose of Section 14 also.