- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the landlord respondent, who has appeared through caveat.
(2.) ADDITIONAL J. S. C. C. , Kanpur Nagar has taken an ultra technical view of the matter, which has unnecessary caused delay in the disposal of the case. Suit of the landlord respondent was decreed ex parte in the year 1985 (S. C. C. Suit No. 868 of 1982, Bhola Ram v. Bal Govind ). In the year 1985, itself restoration application was filed (Misc. Case No. 196/74 of 1985 ). The restoration application remained pending for 18 years. Ultimately, it was allowed on 7. 2. 2003 with the condition that within 15 days unpaid rent must be paid to the landlord. Rate of rent is only Rs. 50/- per month. Property in dispute is one room house situate in Kanpur Nagar. The amount of unpaid rent, i. e. , Rs. 1. 850/-, was deposited but beyond 15 days from 7. 2. 2003. Thereafter, application for extension of time was filed, IInd ADDITIONAL J. S. C. , Kanpur Nagar through order dated 3. 5. 2003 gave a very strange direction. The Court directed that tenant could withdraw the amount, which he had deposited beyond time and should pay equivalent amount to the landlord within 15 days. Instead of passing that order, the learned ADDITIONAL J. S. C. C. , should have directed the landlord to withdraw the amount already deposited after condoning the delay in making the deposit by the tenant on payment of cost. Thereafter, Court concerned remained vacant as is evident from the copy of the order sheet filed today along with supplementary-affidavit. Thereafter, matter was transferred to J. S. C. C. , Kanpur Nagar. The tenant filed application for recall of order dated 3. 5. 2003 and prayed for time to pay the rent to the landlord. J. S. C. C. , Kanpur Nagar rejected the recall application and affirmed the earlier orders dated 3. 5. 2003 and 7. 2. 2003 through order dated 13. 3. 2008. Against the said order, S. C. C. Revision No. 61 of 2008 was filed. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dismissed the revision through order dated 16. 7. 2008, hence this writ petition. In my opinion, the trial Court by its order dated 3. 5. 2003 had virtually condoned the delay in making the deposit in pursuance of order dated 7. 2. 2003 as tenant had been directed to pay the amount to the landlord within 15 days from the order dated 3. 5. 2003. Accordingly, there was no need to direct the tenant to pay the said amount again to the landlord and withdraw the amount, which he had deposited in the Court. Instead of that, trial Court should have permitted the landlord to withdraw the amount. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. Orders dated 16. 7. 2008 and 13. 3. 2008 are set aside. Order dated 3. 5. 2003 is modified. It is directed that the amount of Rs. 1850/- deposited by the tenant shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the landlord respondent at once.
(3.) BOTH the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15. 9. 2008 along with certified copy of this order. Tenant petitioner is further directed to deposit the rent from February, 2003 till September, 2008 @ Rs. 50/- per month positively by 15. 9. 2008 before the trial Court. However, if any rent for this period has already been deposited, the same need not be red posited.;