RATANLAL Vs. RAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions by tenants against the same landlord-non-petitioner raise identical questions and as they were heard together, it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. S. B. Civil Revision No. 9 of 1981 is by the tenant Ratanlal against the order dated October 24,1981 passed by the District Judge, Merta in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 1977, by which, he dismissed the appeal against the order dated February 4, 1977 of the Munsif, Nawa, who struck out the petitioner's defence against eviction.

(2.) A show cause notice was issued to the non-petitioner as to why the revision petition be not admitted. The record was sent for on April 2, 1981. The Court ordered that it would be proper that the revision petition may be heard along with S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 18 of 1981: Jethmal Vs. Ramlal. On May 4, 1981, it was ordered that this revision petition be listed for admission along with S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 18 of 1981. That revision has been listed today.

(3.) IT is not in dispute in both the revision petitions that the defence against eviction was struck out on the ground that the defendant-tenants had failed to deposit the monthly rent of August, 1976 by September 15, 1976 as required by S. 13 (4) of the Act. There is no dispute that the application was moved on behalf of the defendants on August 17, 1976 for grant of one month's time which was granted. On September 16, 1976, a second application was submitted for grant of further time of one month for depositing the amount determined, which was also granted as the learned counsel for the plaintiff had no objection to it. Subsequently, on October 15, 1976, another application was moved along with the tender stating that as the Presiding Officer of the Court was on leave upto October 24, 1976 and therefore, the amount could not be deposited and as such the time may be extended upto October 24, 1976. On October 25, 1976, learned counsel for the plaintiff accepted the rent and passed a receipt. The rent for the month of September, 1976 could be deposited by fifteenth of October, 1976 and a further period of fifteen days could be enlarged under S. 13 (4) of the Act. The rent was accepted on October 25, 1976. On the basis of the above facts, learned counsel for the defendant-tenants contested that the default or failure of the tenants to pay or deposit monthly rent of August, 1976 by September 15, 1976 was waived by the plaintiff and the default was condoned and, therefore, the defence against eviction could not be struck out. This is contested by Mr. Chacha, learned counsel for the non-petitioner. He submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, which have been narrated above and about which there is no dispute, it cannot be said that there was waiver on the part of the plaintiff-landlord in regard to the default committed by the defendants in payment of the monthly rent of August, 1976 as contemplated under S. 13 (4) of the Act.