Dua, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's revision from the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal and affirming the order of the Rent Controller directing his eviction from the premises.
(2.) IT appears that by means of a lease -deed dated 29th November 1951 registered on 13th December 1951, a vacant site was leased out by Mahant Gurmukh Dass in favour of Pyara Singh and Dalip Singh for a period of 20 years at the rate of Rs. 75/ - per month, it being agreed that six months' rent was to be paid in advance. In January, 1961, the present eviction proceedings were initiated alleging that the rent had not been paid since 1st January 1960 and also that there was subletting and that the tenants were not desirable persons. It is unnecessary to consider in detail or closely the landlord's allegations and the tenant's reply in these proceedings because the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have both ordered the present petitioner's eviction on the ground that he was in arrears of rent and had not deposited the same on the first hearing. The learned Kent Controller has observed that the tenant appeared before him through his counsel on 19th April 1961 but tendered arrears of rent in Court on 22nd April 1961 which shows that the arrears were not tendered on the first day of hearing. In view of a decision of this Court in Mela Ram etc. v. Kundan Lal, (1961) 63 P.L.R. 451, the Controller felt that on account of default in the payment of rent it was unnecessary to go into other points and allowed the application for eviction. The fact that the tenant had asserted that he had not been given a copy of the application was considered to be immaterial for the purpose of holding that the date upon which a defendant or respondent appears to answer the case must be held to be the first day of hearing irrespective of the fact whether or not he was able to answer it. G.D. Khosla C.J. in that case followed two earlier decisions of this Court in Hira Lal v. Gian Singh and Co., A.I.R. 1951 P&B 441 and Mukh Ram v. Siri Ram (19(sic)), 61 P.L.R. 561. The learned Chief Justice preferred to follow these decisions as against the decision of Mehar Singh J. in Ram Chand Jagta Mal Aggarwal v. Mathura Dass Jiwan Mal Kalak, A.I.R. 1955 N.U.C. 4003. The learned Chief Justice also expressed disagreement with the decision of the Bombay High Court in K.M. Dhotre v. A.L. Mashalkar : A.I.R. 1959 Bom. 471.
(3.) THE matter was taken on appeal to the appellate authority by the tenant but without success. It is in these circumstances that the present revision has been preferred.;