PREM LATA Vs. ANANDI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul, who dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by holding that the same was not legally maintainable for the following reasons as given in paras 8 and 9 of the impugned order :-

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not the requirement of the law either under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC or in the Rent Restriction Act that a tenant must deposit the arrears of rent claimed by the landlord. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have also the occasion to go through these judgments independently and in my opinion the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge may not be acted upon by me. Even the ratio of these judgments would show that the Rent Controller has to give the finding on question of fact whether the tenant had the capacity to pay the rent or not. No finding has been given by the Rent Controller. The fact is that in the execution proceedings the tenant has deposited the rent as claimed by the landlord. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.1.2001 is hereby set aside with the directions to the Rent Controller to restore the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to its original number and give specific finding with regard to issues No. 1 and 2. Issue No. 3, is however, decided against the decree-holders.