HARI PRASAD Vs. SUMRIT MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defendant In an eviction suit in which his defence against ejectment has been struck out on account of default on his part in making a deposit of the arrears of rent in accordance with the Court's order passed on the 24th February, 1971. The relevant portion of that order was that the defendant must deposit the arrears of rent from the 28th July, 1969 at the rate of Rs. 23/- per month within fifteen days from the date of the order, failing which his defence against ejectment would be struck out.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the court had remained closed from the 24th February, 1971 until the 14th March, 1971 and had re-opened on the 15th March, 1971. Meanwhile, the period of fifteen days mentioned in the Court's order dated the 24th February, 1971, had elapsed, implying thereby that the last date available to the petitioner for making the deposit of the arrears of rent was the 15th March, 1971.

(3.) On the 15th March, 1971, the petitioner tendered a chalan for making the deposit in question. The chalan after being checked and passed was delivered to him on the 16th March, 1971. The petitioner deposited the amount, namely, Rs. 463.50 in the Government Treasury on the 16th March, 1971 itself. This was done in spite of the fact that in terms of the endorsement of the judge-in-charge on the chalan in question dated the 16th March, 1971, the officer-in-charge of Bhagalpur Treasury had been authorised to receive the deposit it tendered to him before 3 P.M- on the 17ih March, 1971. The admitted position, therefore, is that the deposit of the arrears of rent was not made on the 15th March, but a day later, namely on the 16th March, 1971. Upon these facts, the question arises whether there was a default on the part of the petitioner so as to make him liable for the penalty imposed by the law, namely that of having his defence against ejectment struck out. The trial Court has taken the view that the petitioner has incurred the said liability and has accordingly, struck out the petitioner's defence against ejectment.