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; 7. 7. 53. It appears that on 6. 7. 53., the rents of June, July and August, 1953, were deposited by the defendant with the Rent Controller and there was actually no arrears 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.) 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 tenant-petitioner in view of the decision of this Court, reported in Dwarkin & Son Ltd. Vs. Hari Singh, (58 C.W.N. 1012). Vide also Sarma Vs. Nagendrabala, 57 C.W.N. 1 (F.B.) 14, where it was held that past technical defaults would be sufficient for purposes of section 12(1) (i) and thus for purposes of section 14 also.

(3.) The present case would, therefore, clearly come under section 14 and the order of the learned Munsif being otherwise right, the present Rule must fail.