PUNAM BHAI PATEL Vs. BAJRANG LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the defendant of a suit for eviction instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party. By order dated the 14th January, 1972, the learned trial Judge has rejected the defence of the defendant for non-compliance of an order dated the 6th January, 1970, by which the defendant had been ordered to deposit the rent of each month by the 15th of the next month. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defendant had been paying rent to the plaintiff regularly upto the month of June 1971, but the plaintiff had refused to accept the rent for the month of July, 1971. On 21st August, 1971, the defendant filed an application in court stating, that, the plaintiff had not accepted the rent of July and, therefore, the defendant may be allowed to deposit the rent in Court The learned trial Judge has held, that, the defendant had to deposit the rent of the month of July, 1971, on or before the 15 of the next month and the defendant not having done so, the order dated the 6th January, 1970, will come into effect.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that, the plaintiff had been accepting rent upto June 1971, and he cannot take advantage of his own wrong, by not accepting the rent of July and, therefore, the order rejecting the defendant's defence Is wrong and ought to be set aside.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not think any case has been made out for interference. The learned counsel for the petitioner has read out the order dated 6th January, 1970, and the terms of the order were clear and precise and, obviously, that order was not complied with and, therefore, the order dated the 14th January, 1972, rejecting the defendant's defence against eviction cannot be interfered with. The civil revision is, therefore, dismissed, but, in the circumstances, there will be no order for costs.