LILA KARAN SHARMA Vs. SAT PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure is directed against the order passed by learned City Judge, Jammu, on April 8,1988 whereby the application of the landlord/petitioner in a suit for ejectment under Section 12 (4) of the J&K Houses and Shops Rent control Act, 1966 has been rejected. The learned trial court under the impugned order found that the tenant/respondent has not committed any default for the payment of the rent except six days delay in the deposit of rent for the month of July, 1987. In this view of the matter the trial court found that no default in fact has been committed deliberately or intentionally by the respondent in complying with the order of the court passed on 7 -11 -1986, directing him to deposit rent by 15th of each month. The learned trial court has in candoning the delay drawn its authority from the full Bench decision of this court reported in 1987 K. L. J 304 and AIR 1987 J&K 89.

(2.) HEARD the rival arguments and perused the record.

(3.) ON perusal of the record and as was also admitted by learned counsel for the respondent that no application for condonation of delay in making the deposit for the month of July 1987 of six days, was made. The rigour of Section 12 (4) of the non -compliance of the court order by making the default and striking of the defence can of course be lifted provided that the tenant makes out a case to attract the power of the court. The word "shall" no doubt as held by the Full Bench authority, can under the circumstances be deemed to be directory but for that it is incumbent on the tenant to make out a case to that effect. It is no doubt that striking out of the defence is also a very harsh remedy and for that conduct of the tenant shall also be recorded.