AJAY KUMAR S/O RATANLALJI DHAKAD Vs. NANLAL S/O SHIVKARAN SHAH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. SHYAM KUMAR S/O NANALAL SHAH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri V.K. Gangwal learned counsel for petitioner. Shri M. Bhachawat, learned counsel for respondents.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that respondent landlord had filed an application under Sec. 13(6) of Act stating that petitioner had not deposited the rent since Sept. 2013. Trial court while allowing the said application has noted the different dates when the rent was deposit and has come to the conclusion that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in depositing the rent and has struck off the defence on the ground that rent has not been deposited in terms of Sec. 13(1) of Act.

(3.) Trial court while passing the impugned order has only mentioned the different dates on which rent was deposited and the fact that there was a delay in deposit of the rent but has failed to appreciate that the order of striking of the defence is not to be passed mechanically in every case of default of deposit of rent but Sec. 13(6) of Act confers discretionary powers on the court which are to be exercised judicially after considering the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the nature and extent of default, subsequent deposit of rent and considering the fact if the default is deliberate or if there is contumacy or positive malafide on the part of tenant in not depositing the rent within time.