(1.) THE landlord is the Petitioner. He instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the tenants (opposite Parties 1 to 3) on the ground that they had defaulted to deliver to him the rent accrued due within two months from the date on which it became payable.
(2.) IN the petition before the Collector under the Act it was specified that 15 -12 -1963 was the date when the rent fell due. The application was filed on 28 -2 -1964. After hearing the parties the O.T.R. Collector rejected the application. Upon appeal by the landlord the Sub -divisional Officer allowed relief of eviction.
(3.) THERE is no dispute that the cause of Action arose on 15.12.1963. Under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act failure of the tenant to deliver to the landlord the rent accrued due within two months from the date on which it becomes payable gives the cause of (sic) and under the proviso 60 days ' time is allowed to come to the Court with the application. Thus the tenants were to pay the rent by 15 -2 -1964, and if they failed to do so within 60 day therefrom the landlord had the right to apply for necessary relief. The application in this case was made on 28 -2 -1964. It is therefore, within the time allowed under the law. It was contended on behalf of the opposite parties that in the instant case no dispute, however, arose because after failure of the tenants to deliver to the landlord the rent accrued within two months no demand had been made by the landlord of rent and there had been no refusal on the part of the tenants to pay. The word 'dispute ' in Section 9(1) of the Act has been used in the sense of giving rise, to cause of Action. The Additional District Magistrate went wrong in holding that the application made under Section 9(1) of the Act was out of time. We would quash that order dated 4 -6 -1968 and direct him to dispose of the revision petition on merits. The, writ application is allowed. Both parties would bear their own costs.