HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DESA RAMJI LAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Kapur, J. -
(1.) This rule has been obtained by the tenants against an appellate order passed by Additional District Judge Mehr Singh Chadha reversing the order of the Rent Controller and thus ordering ejectment of the tenants
(2.) The landlord applied to the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenants under Section 13 (2) (i) of the Rent Restriction Act. This was on 24-11-1952. The tenants pleaded that they had deposited the entire rent due from them and they could deduct Rs. 10/- which were due to them on account of costs of a previous application. Rs. 96/- were due on account of rent for four years, but the amount deposited by the tenants was Rs. 18/-, and it is not clear from the record whether the rent was deposited on the first hearing, and no costs and interest due was deposited until the Court ordered the tenants to do so. Thus, there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 13 (2) (i) of the Rent Restriction Act.
(3.) The Controller, however, thinking that he had discretion, did not order eviction on the ground that the tenants were illiterate and had been in possession of the house for a long time and thus allowed them time to pay costs plus interest and this order the learned Additional District Judge has set aside in appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.