JYOTINDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. KEWALJHARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for eviction from the house property has filed this civil revision application against the order passed by the trial Court striking out his written statement.

(2.) By an order dated the 28th February, 1970, the Court below directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent for the period February 1969 to January 1970 at the rate of Rs. 9/- per month within fifteen days of the order and deposit was made in time. Subsequently, by an order passed by the House Controller, the Municipal valuation of the property in question was raised and the rent was fixed by the House Controller at Rs. 99.80 with effect from the 17th March, 1969. On the 15th March, 1971, the plaintiff filed an application for direction to the defendant for deposit of the balance of the amount, and by an order passed on that very date the Court below directed the defendant to make further deposit at the rate of Rs. 9.80 per month for the period 17th March 1969 to the 28th February 1971. Within fifteen days of the order. On the 29th March 1971 the petitioner filed a chalan and mentioned therein clearly that he was making the deposit of the excess rent for the period 17th March 1969 to 28th February 1971 at the rate of Rs. 9.80 per month. The amount mentioned therein was Rs. 224.30. After the chalan was passed, the money was deposited in time.

(3.) In an appeal from the order of the House Controller filed by the petitioner, the appellate Court set aside the order of the House Controller and restored the rent of the property in question to Rs. 90/- per month. On the 6th January, 1972, the plaintiff filed an application in the Court below praying that the defence must be struck off because the defendant had defaulted in making the deposit of the rent for the month of October 1970 and for the further reason that the amount which had been deposited on the 29th March 1971 should have been Rs. 230.30 and not Rs. 224.30. The matter was considered by the Court below and by its order dated the 26th August, 1972, the Court below held that the plaintiff's claim that the defendant had defaulted in matter of making deposit of the rent for the month of October 1970 was not correct. Agreeing with the plaintiff, the Court below held that money deposited on the 29th March 1971 in pursuance of the order passed on the 16th March 1971 was short by Rs. 5.84. The Court below, therefore, directed striking off the defence. The defendant has preferred the present civil revision application against the last mentioned order.