J.V.GUPTA,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Chandigarh, dated November 26, 1986, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the proceedings in the suit stayed by the Supreme Court were ordered to be revived.
(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the suit was stayed by the Supreme Court on the condition that tenant will go on paying regularly rent by the tenth of every month. Earlier also, there was a default on its part and the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court when on March 20, 1987, the Supreme Court passed the following order as reproduced in paragraph 2 of the order under revision - "Delay condoned. Mr. S.T. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent has a legitimate grievance that the appellant is rather lax in paying the rent regularly. The rent in arrears up to March, 1985, has been deposited in the trial Court. We direct that future rent/use and occupation charges shall be paid to the landlord himself, who is a practising lawyer from month to month and he will accept the same. The landlord is at liberty to withdraw the arrears of the rent deposited in the trial Court." This time again, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant-tenant did not pay the rent for the month of October, 1985, by the tenth of that month, as allowed by the Supreme Court. That was contested on behalf of the defendant. Registered envelop containing the draft was sent on October 7, 1985, to the address given by the plaintiff, but it was reported that he was not available. When the said envelope was sent to his High Court address, it was reported that the plaintiff was not available. However, the trial Court did not allow any evidence to be produced and came to the conclusion that no postal receipt had been placed on the record to show if the registered cover was sent to the plaintiff. The original envelope returned to the defendant was shown in this Court. After a perusal of the same, it could not be disputed that the said envelope was sent to the plaintiff on October 7, 1985. The same could not be delivered to him because he was not available. In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. However, in future, in order to avoid any further complication, it is directed that the defendant tenant will go on depositing the rent regularly as directed by the Supreme Court, in the trial Court itself, instead of sending it by post to the plaintiff. Petition allowed.;