REKHA BHANDARI Vs. DEEPAK SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.

(2.) THE Apex Court of the country issued these directions in Miss Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash, 1980(2) RCR 516. It is in the light of these directions, that 1 proceed to decide the instant appeal.

(3.) BROADLY the facts are admitted by the parties. In a suit for rent and ejectment instituted by the plaintiff-respondent (for short the plaintiff) provisional rent was determined by the trial court. An application was moved by the plaintiff stating that the rent for the months of March, April and May 1993 and May 1994 was deposited late, therefore the defence against eviction of the defendant be struck off. The defendant submitted reply to the effect that rent for the month of March 1993, April 1993 and May 1993 was deposited respectively on April 13, 1993, May 4, 1993 and June, 3, 1993 in the bank account of plaintiff bearing No. 4053. By mistake of the defendant's employee the cheques were deposited in Bajaj Nagar Branch of State Bank of India instead of Tonk Road Branch. The account No. 4053 was mentioned in the slips and cheques were accepted by the Bank debiting to the account in routine manner. However, when mistake became known the amount was got transferred from Bajaj Nagar Branch to Tonk Road Branch in the plaintiff's account No. 4053 on July 9, 1993. Similarly the rent of May 1994 was deposited on June 1, 1994 in the Tonk Road Branch but inadvertently the plaintiff's account number could not be mentioned in the slip therefore the amount was not credited in the plaintiff's account despite the fact that plaintiff's name was mentioned. This amount was kept by the bank in the suspense account. When this fact came in the knowledge the amount was got transferred in the plaintiff's account number 4053 on July 1, 1994. It was also mentioned by the defendant that while depositing the amount determined under Section 13(3) of the Act the defendant had deposited two months rent in advance in excess of the amount determined by the court. Therefore in any case there could been no default. In the alternative the defendant requested that the delay in depositing the rent was due to mistake and was bona fide, therefore the same deserve to the condoned. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act duly supported by the affidavit was also filed.