MADAN LAL Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for ejectment on the ground of default in the payment of rent, pending in the court of Munsiff, Jammu the plaintiff made an application that the defendant may ba directed to pay the rent from month to month as also the amount of rent in arrears. The defendant pleaded in reply to this application that nothing was due from him and that he had paid the whole amount. The parties led evidence on this question. The Munsiff ultimately vide his order dated 21 -1 -74 found that the rent was in arrears and accordingly directed the defendant to deposit the same in the court within fifteen days failing which his defence would be struck. The amount which the court called upon the defendant to deposit was not however specified. Subsequently the defendant made an application to the court below that as the order dated 21 -l -74did not specify the amount the same may be specified. The court below rejected the application and has refused to specify the amount vide its order 15 -2 -74. The defendant has applied for the revision of both the orders.

(2.) I have beard the counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the court below. I am of the view that both the orders are defective and therefore should stand revised.

(3.) IT is a case where the plaintiff says the amount of rent is in arrear, the defendant pleads that he has paid the amount and nothing was due the plaintiff and the court holds an enquiry and comes to the conclusion that the defendant is in arrears but does not specify the amount which the defendant has to deposit. When the court ordered the defendent to deposit the rent, the defendant was entitled to be told what the amount to be paid by him particulary when he had denied the existence of arrears.