FAQIR CHAND Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the decision of the appellate authority and the Rent Controller directing eviction of the tenant.

(2.) The eviction was claimed on the ground or non-payment of rent. The notice to the tenant was issued for 5th of December, 1968. The tenant did appear on that date but as the Presiding Officer was on leave, the hearing was adjourned to 24th of December, 1968. On 24th of December, 1968, the tenant did appear and in spite of the assessment of costs, he did not deposit the arrears of rent. Accordingly the petition was allowed and eviction ordered. The tenant being dissatisfied moved the appellate authority but without any success and hence the present petition for revision.

(3.) The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that 24th December, 1968 cannot be said to the first hearing, I am unable to agree with this contention. The phrase first hearing' has not been defined in the Act but there are judicial pronouncements as to what is a 'first hearing'. In this connection reference may he made to Mangat Rai v. Ved Parkash, 1969 RCR(Rent) 96. This is Division Bench authority and it binds me. According to this authority, first hearing means when the court has been the chance to look into the pleadings. This did happen on the 24th December, 1968. In fact the tenant was specifically asked to deposit the arrears of rent and he did not do so. Thus, no fault can be found with the decision of the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority.