RAM PRASAD SAO Vs. SIKANDAR ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -defendant seeks to challenge an order passed by the trial court striking off his defence in a suit for eviction for not depositing the arrears of rent within the statutory time in compliance with an earlier order passed under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (L.R.&E) Control Act, 1982.

(2.) THE admitted facts are like this. By order dated 11.9.1998 the petitioner was directed to deposit the arrears of rent @ Rs.80/ - per month within fifteen days from the date of the order as provided in section 15 of the Act. The petitioner admittedly did not deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days. He, however, made the deposit on 5.11.98. According to him he did not make the deposit as he intended to file a civil revision against the order dated 11.9.1998 but when he met a lawyer practising at the bar of this court, he was advised to make the deposit in any case and accordingly he went and made the deposit on 5.11.98. Eventually no civil revision was filed against the order dated 11.9.1998. The trial court has disbelieved the plea that the failure to make the deposit within fifteen days was on account of the fact that the petitioner intended to file a civil revision before this court.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon two decisions; one of the Supreme Court and another of this court in support of his contention that the court should normally take a lenient view and should ordinarily condone any delay in making the deposit. He first cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Prasad Sah Keshri & Another V/s. Laxmi Narayan Gupta, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 964 : 1985 PLJR (SC)41. The facts in the case of Ganesh Prasad Sah Keshri were quite different. In that case there was no delay in depositing the arrears of rent but there was some irregularity in the deposit of the future rent for the months of August to October, 1975. Earlier that suit was decreed by the trial court ex parte. Later, on a petition filed under Order 9 rule 13, the ex parte decree was recalled and the suit was fixed for hearing. At that stage the plaintiff -landlord pointed out to the trial court regarding the irregularity made in depositing the rent for the months of August to October, 1975. As that period was antecedent to the date of the order, recalling the ex parte decree, the trial court rejected the landlord 'splea to strike off the defence of the tenant. the High Court in civil revision set aside the order passed by the trial court and held that the tenant 'sdefence must be struck off. In those circumstances the Supreme Court set aside the High court 'sorder holding as follows