Shamsher Bahadur, J. - (1.) IN order to appreciate the contention which has been raised by Mr. Narula, the learned Counsel for the -Petitioner -tenant, it is essential to state the facts leading up to the order which is sought to be challenged in this Court.
(2.) RADHE Lal is a tenant of the premises consisting of a godown which had been rented by him originally at the rate of Rs. 75/ - per mensem from one Suresh Chand, predecessor -in interest of the present Respondents. The rent was raised subsequently to Rs. 112/ - somewhere in 1955. The suit property was purchased by the Respondents Hem Chand and Rani Urmila on 11th of February, 1956, and the Petitioner in due course attorned to the new owners the rent being maintained at Rs. 112/ - per mensem. The rent was accepted upto 11th of August, 1956. A suit for ejectment was brought by the Respondents on 5th of February, 1959 on grounds of re construction and non -payment of rent. It may be mentioned that in the suit as originally framed, rent was claimed from 11th of February, 1956 but later on, it was admitted that it had been paid upto 11th of August, 1956. Before the first hearing, the rent and costs amounting in all to Rs. 3,370/ - were paid on 31st of March, 1959. Further payment was duly made on 28th of April, 1959. It was on 13th of May, 1959. that the trial Court passed an order, the breach of which is stated to provide a ground to the landlord to claim that the tenant has defaulted. In this order the tenant was directed to make deposit of arrears of rent and future rent at the rate of Rs. 112/ - per mensem with effect from the 11th of August, 1956. On 23rd of May, 1959, the tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 336/ - in settlement of the arrears due upto that date.
(3.) IT may at this stage be pointed out that Sub -section (5} of Section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Kent Control Act, 1952 by which the parties are concededly governed, is to this effect: - If the tenant contests the suit as regards the claim for ejectment, the Plaintiff -landlord may make an application at any stage of the suit for an order on the tenant -Defendant to deposit month by month rent at a rate at which it was last paid and also the arrears of rent, if any, and the Court, after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, may make an order tor the deposit of rent at such rate month by month as it thinks fit and the arrears of rent, if any, and on the failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of the date of the order or to deposit the rent at such rule for any month by the 15th of the next following month, the court shall order the defence against ejectment to be struck out and the tenant to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the claim to ejectment; and the landlord may withdraw the amount of money in deposit without prejudice to his claim to any decree or order for recovery of possession of the premises. The Civil courts were closed between 14th of June and 16th of July, 1959, for vacation. On 16th of July, 1959, the tenant made an application to deposit two months' rent which had become due. The Court which was on leave till 22nd of July, 1959, passed an order on 23rd of July, 1959, permitting the tenant to make the deposit by treasury challan. The tenant says that the treasury did not effectively operate on 24th of July as it was in the process of shifting to another building and consequently the deposit was made on the following day, namely, 25th of July, 1959. There was thus a delay of two days in making the payment.;