VAIDYA RUDRA DUTT Vs. TEEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the plaintiff against an appellate order of the civil Judge, Jaipur City, framing an issue to the effect whether the defendant was not a defaulter in the payment of rent as the same was offered and tendered by her to the plaintiff, and remitting it for trial to the lower Court under Order 41, rule 25, C. P. C.

(2.) THE plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment inter alia on the ground of default. The defence of the defendant on the ground of default was struck off by the trial Court as in its opinion there was default in making payments in accordance with Section 13 (4 ). The suit for eviction was accordingly decreed. On appeal the appellate court framed the above issue following the decision in Vishwanath Singh v. Gopilal, 1970 Raj LW 223. That decision has since been overruled by a Division bench of this Court in Saligram v. Narot-tamlal, 1971 WLN 118 = (AIR 1972 Raj 127) with the result that the above issue no longer arises.

(3.) ON behalf of the defendant it is contended that it is not a case decided. Reliance is placed on the decision in Bir Indra Bikram Singh v. Raghubar Dayal, AIR 1935 oudh 333. No reason for the view taken in that case has been given in the decision. In S. S. Khanna v. F. J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 it was observed as follows: