SHARMA, J. - (1.) LEARNED trial court after extending benefit of first default to the tenant defendant, dismissed the suit for eviction of the plaintiff landlord. LEARNED first appellate court however reversed the finding of trial Court and allowed the appeal of the landlord holding that the tenant had committed second default. It is against the decree of the first appellate court that the instant appeal has been filed by the tenant.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and scrutinised the material on record. Since the rent was deposited after expiry of period of limitation, the finding of learned trial Court was rightly reversed by the learned first appellate Court. In Nasiruddin vs. Sita Ram Agarwal (AIR 2003 SC 1543) = (RLW 2003 (2) SC 315), the Apex Court indicated that:- " The word `shall', which is ordinarily imperative in nature, has been used in sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 13. The power of the Court has also been limited to the extent that it can extend time for such deposit not exceeding three months and so far as the deposit of monthly rent is concerned, by fifteen days. The Court's power, therefore, is restricted. In case tenant deposits the provisional rent as determined by the Court within stipulated period the tenant is relieved by the eviction decree. Sub-section (4) of Sec. 13 is mandatory. " In Arumugham vs. Sundarambal (JT 1999 (4) SC 464) the Apex Court held that it is open to the first appellate court to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and give its own reasons for accepting the evidence on one side or rejecting the evidence on other side. It is not permissible for the second appellate court to interfere with such findings of the first appellate court only on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to grips with the reasoning given by the appellate trial Court. I am satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and it stands dismissed without any order as to costs. .;