- (1.) THIS is a dispute between landlord and tenant. An application was filed by the plaintiff u. /o. 15, R. 5, C. P. C. for striking out the defence of the defendant on the ground that he had failed to deposit the rent due to the plaintiff. The defendant filed a chart along with an application (40/c) showing the dates when the deposit of rent was made. On considering that Chart the trial Court came to the conclusion that the rent due from the defendant had not been deposited by the 7th of every month and there was no explanation forthcoming on his behalf as to why the deposit of rent was belated. In these circumstances, the trial Court, ordered that the defence of the defendant be struck off u/o. 15, R. 5, C. P. C. Hence this revision.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. I have also scrutinised. the record of the case. The plaintiff-respondent flied the instant suit for ejectment of the defendant-applicant in November, 1980. The plaintiff is a widow while the defendant is an Advocate of the High Court. After the filing of the written statement, issues were struck on 29-1-1981. Thereafter several dates were fixed for final hearing. A close scrutiny of the order-sheet of the case indicates that for some reason or the other the case was prolonged. The defendant approached the High Court for a transfer of the case and got the proceedings stayed for some time. The transfer application was finally rejected. The defendant then got the written statement amended and additional issues were framed on 27-2-1982. Three days earlier, the plaintiff had moved the instant application u/o. 15, R. 5, C. P. C. On 27th Feb. , 1982 the court directed the defendant to file a chart showing the details of deposit of rent made by him. The defendant having objected to the valuation of the suit, an issue was framed thereon as to whether the suit was undervalued and this issue was finally decided in favour of the plaintiff on 24th April, 1982. Thereafter again an objection was filed by the defendant for framing additional issues as to whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of sub-tenant. It was prayed by the defendant that this issue be decided as a preliminary issue. The court framed an additional issue. After this an application was filed, the same day, viz. 24-5-1982 praying for time to file a revision in the High Court. This was allowed and he was granted time till 28th May, 1982. No stay order was obtained from the High Court. Ultimately the trial Court passed the impugned order on 5th July, 1982 striking out the defence under O. 15, R. 5, C. P. C. The defendant again applied for time to file a revision and to bring a stay order from the High Court against the aforesaid order dt. 5-7-1982. Time was allowed to 10th August, 1982. No stay order was obtained. On 21st Sept. , 1982 the defendant again applied before the trial Court for further time. The plaintiff objected on the ground that the defendant was taking adjournment after adjournment on one pretext or the other and the hearing was being delayed. However, the trial Court granted time till 4th Oct. , 1982. On that date again an application was filed before the trial Court praying for 3 days' further time to file a copy of the stay order of the High Court. The High Court at first stage, stayed the proceedings for a limited period and thereafter on 14th Dec. . 1982 the High Court admitted the revision and continued the stay, and on the agreement of counsel for the parties, directed the revision to be listed for hearing in the week commencing January 10, 1983. It appears from the scrutiny of the High Court record that in view of the old age and ailing condition of the plaintiff Smt. Chandra Kala Devi who was to go to Calcutta for major operation, the High Court (Mr. Justice A. Banerji) ordered that her statement would be recorded by the court below. Counsel for the plaintiff (defendant?) - applicant agreed that he had on objection to an early date being fixed for this purpose. In view of this agreement, Justice Banerji directed on 22-10-1982 that the statement of Smt. Chandra Kala Devi would be recorded and further proceedings thereafter shall remain stayed till further orders of this Court. On 25th Oct. , 1982, the plaintiff moved an application in the court below in pursuance of the order of the High Court for recording her statement. The Court fixed 30th Oct. , 1982 and directed that information be sent to counsel for the defendant. On 30th Oct. 1982, when the case was called out, the plaintiff was present but the defendant was absent. He could not be served with summons. The report of the process-server was that the house of the defendant was found locked. The trial Court then directed that the evidence of the plaintiff be recorded on 3rd Nov. , 1982 and information of the date be sent to the defendant again and his counsel. On 3rd Nov. , 1982 when the case was called for bearing the plaintiff was again present but none appeared for the defendant. The report dt. 3rd Nov. 1982 of the counsel for the plaintiff indicated that he did contact Sri Prem Prakash Yadav. Advocate, the defendant but Sri Yadav did not accept the notice as the plaintiff's counsel was not accompanied by any process-server. Thereafter it appears that in view at the order of the High Court dated 14-12-1982 mentioned above the proceedings in the trial Court remained stayed without the statement of the plaintiff being recorded. These are the detailed facts with regard to the progress of the case, since the time of the institution which are borne out from the record of the case. On the basis of these facts two inferences are inevitable. The first inference is that the defendant has been trying to delay the trial of this case by seeking adjournments again and again on some ground or the other. He pleaded for amendment of the written statement; he pleaded for framing of additional issues; he pleaded for a transfer of the case from the trial Court. which was refused. Thus on one ground or the other he went on delaying the proceedings.
(3.) THE second inference is that in spite of the fact that he gave an undertaking to the High Court that he had no objection to the statement of the plaintiff an old ailing lady to be recorded by the trial Court, he refused to accept service of process when the information of the date fixed was given to him by the plaintiff's counsel. After having agreed in the High Court for getting the statement of the plaintiff recorded early, he should not have avoided to honour his commitment by not accepting process tendered to him by the plaintiff's counsel. Coming now to the question of deposit of monthly rent during the continuance of the proceedings, the following Chart may be taken into consideration : (A) Deposit chart as per Annaxure-4 filed along with the stay application. Sl. No. Date of Deposit Month and Year 1.-2-1981 Dec. , 1980 to Jan. , 1981 2.-4-1981 Feb. and Mar. , 1981 3.-5-1981 April, 1981 4.-8-1981 May, June, July, 1981 5.-11-1981 Aug. , September, Oct. , and Nov. , 1981 6.-2-1982 Dec. , 1981, Jan. and Feb. , 1982;