UNION OF INDIA Vs. AKHAURI HARENDRA NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order passed under Section 11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease. Bent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, striking out the defence of the petitioner.

(2.) IT appears that the plaintiffs Opposite Parties filed a suit for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of nonpayment of rent and personal necessity and for a decree for the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,284/-. During the course of the suit an application was filed on the 25th of November, 1971, under Section 11-A of the Act for a direction to the defendants to deposit the arrears of rent and the current and future rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. An order to that effect was passed on the 15th of February. 1972. except that the rate of rent at which the payment was made last was held to be Rs. 105.25 PS. per month. In pursuance of this order, on the 3rd of March, 1972. the petitioners defendants granted two cheques drawn On the Reserve Bank of India for the arrears of rent upto the month of February, 1972. The plaintiffs opposite parties, however, raised objection to the effect that the deposit by cheques was not valid and prayed on that very day that the defence of the petitioners be struck out. Consideration of this application was postponed till the 28th of April. 1972. Meanwhile, a third cheque for the rent for the month of March. 1972. was also deposited on the 25th of April-1972. On the 28th April, 1972, the Munsiff considered the objection raised by the opposite parties in respect of the validity of the deposit and held that payments by cheques were valid deposits and accordingly, dismissed the petition of objection. The matter 'seems to have rested here so far as the validity of the deposit is concerned. IT appears that the plaintiffs did not agitate against the propriety or the legality of this order. Subsequently, on the other hand, on the 10th of May, 1972. the plaintiffs filed a petition that those cheques be handed over to them for encashment and by an order of the Court, the cheques were handed over on the 13th May. 1972. IT is said that on that very date, the first plaintiff deposited the cheques in his own account in Bank for collection from the Reserve Bank, IT appears, however, that payment of the cheques aforesaid were refused by the Reserve Bank, as the cheques had been drawn in the name of 'Akhauri Harendra Naravan Singh', which ought to have been 'Akhauri Harendra Naravan Sinha'. Thereafter, the plaintiffs presented an application to the Court that since payments had been refused by the Reserve Bank, the Court ought to modify its previous order, dated the 28th April, 1972 and strike out the defence of the petitioners. The matter was heard on the 12th of July, 1972, and the objection was upheld and the defence struck out by an order, dated the 17th of July. 1972, Hence, this revision application.

(3.) ON the first point learned counsel has urged that the learned Munsif had clearly and unequivocally overruled the objection raised earlier by the opposite parties in respect of the form of deposit and held that the deposit by cheques was a valid deposit He had further held that the deposit must be treated to have been made on the date on which the cheque was filed In Court and not on the date on which the cheque was encashed. He had reiected the contention of the opposite parties to the contrary. If the previous order of the learned Munsif, therefore, stands, it means that the deposit had been validly made within time. It appears, however, that the subsequent event, namely, the failure in the matter of encashment of the cheques, had led the learned Munsif to come to the contrary conclusion while disposing of the application, dated the 14th of June, 1972. It appears that in the impugned order, the learned Munsif has held that the cheques having been dishonoured, the defendants had failed to deposit the arrears of rent in time and hence allowed the prraver of the plaintiffs opposite parties for striking out the defence of the petitioners. It is quite obvious that the learned Munsif has gone back on his own earlier decision. In this connection, it bears repetition to say that the plaintiffs opposite parties had not moved higher Court for setting aside the order passed by the learned Munsif on the 28th July, 1972. The order had thus become final between the parties. In the impugned order, the learned Munsif has not cared to consider his previous order at all. In other words, he has not considered the question whether he had a right to review his own order and if he had. whether there was a ground for such a review. He seems to have ignored the effect of the previous order altogether. The question is whether he could review his own order in the circumstances of this case. Even if it be assumed that he had the right to do so. the question is whether there was any new fact discovered in the case, which entitled him to do so. In mv view, there was none. The cheques were deposited in Court and thev are today what thev were the other day. It seems to me to be a clear case of inadvertence on the part of everybody concerned and not a discovery of a new fact at all. so far as the error committed in spelling the name of plaintiff opposite party No. 1 is concerned. The cheaues were available for inspection to the parties on the very day they were filed in Court. Thev had become available to the plaintiffs on the day they were handed over to them for encashment and the cheques had been deposited by the first plaintiff for collection and being credited in his own account. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants nor the Court seems to have noticed the slight mistake in the cheques, which resulted in their being dishonoured. It is obvious that the deposit when made was made bona fide, and there is nothing to show that it was mala fide at all. As I have stated earlier, it is a case of innocent mistake. A slight correction in the name of the plaintiff, in whose name the cheques had been issued, would have entitled him to set this amount from the Reserve Bank of India. It has not been suggested either that the cheque was without any content in the sense that there was no money in the account of the petitioners, which could have been available for encashment of the cheques. There is thus nothing to show that there was any subsequent event to indicate that the deposit wag not valid at all. The learned Munsif, therefore, could not have reviewed his own order. which had become final between the parties.