GANESH DAS Vs. TARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The undisputed facts of this case are that Ganesh Dass, petitioner, is a tenant of the disputed premises under the respondents. The landlords filed an ejectment application before the year 1975 and after the decision of the said application, Ganesh Dass, tenant, went in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority granted a stay order restraining the ejectment of the tenant on the condition of deposit of arrears of rent in the trial Court. Accordingly, petitioner tenant, deposited Rs. 66/- as rent from 15th November, 1974 to 14th October, 1975 on 10th of October, 1975. There after he deposited a sum of Rs. 6/- on 12th November, 1975 for a period from 15th October, 1975 to 14th November, 1975. Another amount of Rs. 6/- was deposited on l 2th December, 1975 for the period from 15th November, 1975 to 14th December, 1975. An amount of Rs. 18/- was deposited on 22nd December, 1975, which represented rent from 15th December, 1975 to 14th March, 1976, An application was filed by the landlord again praying for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent from 15th November, 1974 till the date of the filing of the application which was filed on 27th February, 1976. The tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent, interest and cost as claimed by the landlords on the first date of hearing on the plea that he had already deposited the rent due for the period claimed in the application under the orders of the Appellate Authority in the previous proceedings. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(2.) The landlords filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the only point urged before the Appellate Authority was that since the tender made by the tenant in the earlier proceedings under the orders of the Appellate Authority was not a valid tender in the eye of law and therefore the tenant having failed to tender the rent, interest and cost on the first date of hearing, he was liable to be ejected. This plea was accepted by the learned Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Controller was reversed.

(3.) The learned Appellate Authority gave two findings. Firstly, it was held that even though the deposit of the rent was made under the orders of the Appellate Authority in the previous proceedings yet it appears that no notice of this order was given to the landlords in those proceedings. Secondly, it was held that the earlier deposit was made in the Court of the Sub-Judge and not in the Court of the Rent Controller. As far as the first finding is concerned, in my considered opinion, the same is based on misreading of evidence of R.W.1 Charan Dass. This witness produced the original files in the previous proceedings between the parties and stated that on 24th September, 1975, a conditional stay was given by the Appellate Authority and Shri K.L. Gupta, Advocate for the landlords did not object to this. However, in cross-examination he stated that on 24th September, 1973, landlord-respondents were not present in Court. The statement of this witness clearly establishes that the conditional stay order was passed in the presence of the counsel of the landlords and even if landlords them selves were not present in Court it cannot be held that the conditional stay order was without notice to the landlords as their counsel was present in Court.