Decided on December 06,1967

RAMKUMAR Appellant


- (1.) THIS revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 31st July 1967, passed by the II Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur.
(2.) THE short question involved in this revision is whether the learned Judge acted illegally or with material irregularity in making a direction in terms of s.13(2) of the , in a suit between landlord and tenant. The plaintiffs claimed the ejectment of the defendant on the ground mentioned under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act, for alleged failure on his part to comply with a notice of demand for payment of the arrears of rent due. According to them, the defendant was in arrears with the rent amounting to Rs. 2,720. Thereupon, the defendant filed an application under section 12 (2)and (3), by raising a dispute as regards the amount of rent payable as well as a dispute as to whom it is payable. The learned Judge was of the view that unless there was unconditional payment of the arrears claimed within 15 days of the date of order, the defence will be liable to be struck off. Hence this revision.
(3.) SHRI P. R. Padhye, learned counsel for the applicant confined his submission to section 13 (2) and according to him, under that provision the Court has to decide a dispute both in respect of the arrears payable and the rate of rent which is to be paid or deposited. In other words, the dispute referred to in sub-section (2) includes a dispute as to the amount of arrears. In support of his submission, the learned counsel places reliance upon three unreported decisions of Sharma J., in Ramniwas v. Kisanlal (CRev.No. 152 of 1963 decided on the 13th December 1963 (Gwalior Bench) Labhchand v. Ramswarup (CRev. No. 206 of 1963 decided on the 9th January 1964 (Gwalior Bench), and Ramnarain v. Gourishankar (CRev. No. 229 of 1963 decided on the 30th January 1964 (Gwalior Bench).) He also invites my attention to Premdas v. Laxmi Narayan Pandey (1964 MPLJ 190) and Surajprasad v. Ganpatrai (1967 MPLJ Note 65) The contention cannot be accepted. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Punjamal v. Bhagwati prasad (AIR1963 SC 120), while interpreting similar provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the provisions of this section operate against the landlord, and its provisions should be strictly interpreted and their scope must not be extended beyond the limit warranted by the language used therein.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.