GOPI CHAND Vs. KANHIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no ground for interference with the order of the Court below, directing restoration of the possession of the premises to the tenant after the ex parte order of ejectment was set aside.

(2.) IT is argued on behalf of the landlord that he is ultimately to succeed on the admitted facts of the case, and, therefore, restoration should not be ordered. In highlighting, it is urged by Shri R.L. Sarin that the ex parte order or ejectment was set aside on 11th September, 1986 and in view of my decision in Gurdev Singh v. Surender Kumar Sharma, 1982 (1) RCR 451 (1982 Cur. L.J. 429), which was followed by J.V. Gupta, in Radha Kishan alias Radhey Sham Rai v. Smt. Anguri Devi, 1986, HRR 595, the tenant had to deposit the arrears of rent, which was one of the grounds for ejectment, on 11th September, 1986, the day, ex parte proceedings were ordered to be set aside and he could not be allowed 15 days' time for depositing the rent. He has also placed reliance on Vinod Kumar v. Harbans Singh Azad, 1977(1) RCR 253 (FB); A.I.R. 1977, Punjab 262, a Full Bench judgment of this Court that similar rule was laid down therein.

(3.) FIRST adverting to my judgment in Gurdev Singh's case (supra), it was under Haryana Act. The facts of that case are entirely distinguishable because there the tenant has put in appearance on the first date of hearing and under the proviso to section 13 of the Act, he was given 15 days' time for making the payment. On the adjourned hearing the tenant did not appear with the result that the tender was not made and ex parte proceedings were ordered. Later on tenant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte proceeding and the Court after being satisfied set aside the ex parte proceedings. On these facts, it was held that the day the ex parte proceedings were set aside, would be the date for deposit of the arrears of rent and another 15 days' time could not be allowed to the tenant for deposit. If another time had been granted than the tenant would have had 15 days time twice over and since that was not the intention of the Act on those facts it was held that the tenant was liable to deposit the arrears on the date the order setting aside the ex parte proceedings was passed. Similar are the facts in Radha Kishan's case (supra).