SOM NATH SHARMA Vs. TARA WANTI - LAND LADY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) SHRIMATI Tara Wanti, landlady, filed the ejectment application on May 17, 1984, seeking ejectment of her tenant Som Nath Sharma from the residential house which was rented out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. She claimed that the tenant had not paid rent from October 1, 1982 onwards and, therefore, he was liable to be ejected on account of non-payment of arrears of rent for the said period. She also averred that she bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation. The tenant resisted the petition and controverted the claim of the landlady. When the case came up for tendering of rent on April 6, 1985, when Rs. 2,773.30 were assessed as arrears of rent plus interest and costs, to be paid by the tenant, the tenant asked the permission of the Court to sanction some more time to him to tender the same. However, after that, the tenant did not appear in Court. The case was called several times, but none appeared on his behalf, nor the rent was tendered as assessed. Consequently, the tenant was proceeded ex parte. The tenant moved the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated April 6, 1985, but the same was dismissed vide order dated November 18, 1987. Consequently, ex parte evidence was recorded and since the tenant was found in arrears of rent and that the landlady required the premises for her own use and occupation bonafide, the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller on November 19, 1987. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. Even the order declining to set aside the ex parte proceedings, though not appealable as such, was affirmed. Since the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent till then, the Appellate Authority maintained the eviction order vide order dated October 18, 1988.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Admittedly, the arrears of rent with effect from October 1, 1982 to May 31, 1984, have not been paid uptill today. There is absolutely no explanation for not tendering the said arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. It is not a case where the tenant was not served and was proceeded ex parte; rather it is a case where the tenant was present in Court when the arrears of rent were assessed along with interest and costs. He wanted time for payment thereof which was allowed, but later on for the reasons best known to him, he absented himself. Even if he was not in a position to come to the Court for tendering the amount, he could ask somebody to tender the arrears of rent in Court in time.