RALA RAM Vs. SULTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This re'''''''ision application arises out of a suit by the respondent, filed on 31st August 1954, for ejectment of the applicant, from the premises in suit, on the ground that the applicant is the tenant of the respondent and he is liable to ejectment for reasons stated in the plaint, which reasons are said to be within the scope of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (No. XXXVIII), 1952. It is, however, not necessary for the present purpose to go into the details of the reasons upon which the respondent sought ejectment of the applicant.

(2.) The plaint having been presented on 31st August, 1954, the applicant put in his written statement on 8th November, 1954. Among other pleas in defence he also took the plea that the suit was barred under Order 2, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and because of the principles of res judicata and estoppel. He, of course, denied the grounds of ejectment as urged by the respondent within the scope of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 13 of Act No. XXXVIII of 1952.

(3.) On 4th April, 1955 an application was made by the respondent under section 13(5) of the Act for payment of arrears of rent and future rent by the applicant according to that provision and on that application an order was made on 8th June, 1955 within the meaning and scope of section 13(5). The applicant paid the arrears, and correctly, on 21st June, 1955. After that the parties went into arbitration on 1st August, 1955 and case remained pending before the arbitrator for some time when in the end he refused to arbitrate. On the case coming back before the trial Court, the arbitration was superseded on 31st October 1955. The applicant did not deposit rent according to the order under section 13(5) for the period of the arbitration and also from the date of the supersession of the arbitration to 22nd November, 1955. In the Courts below there were some arguments whether the order of the trial Court under section 13(5) remained operative and effective for the period during which the case was before the arbitrator, but ignoring that aspect of the case, for the moment, it is clear that the applicant should have deposited rent after 31st October, 1955, on which date the arbitration was superseded by the order of the Court, by 15th November, 1955. He did not do so till 22nd November, 1955. Obviously there was no compliance with the order of the Court under section 13(5) of the Act. The result was that on 22nd November, 1955 the learned trial Judge, again in accordance with section 13(5), struck off the defence of the applicant.