Patna High Court
Dr. Anant Prasad Singh vs Devendra Kumar Sinha on 5 March, 1976
Equivalent citations: AIR1976PAT298, AIR 1976 PATNA 298
ORDER H.L. Agrawal, J.
1. In this application by the defendant the only question is as to whether he committed any default in carrying out the peremptory order of this Court dated 9-7-1975 passed in Civil Revision No. 377 of 1975 granting him some time to deposit the arrears of rent and thereby incurring the liability of his written statement being struck off.
2. The facts are these. The petitioner had come earlier to this Court in the aforesaid revisional application against the order of the trial Court passed against him under Section 11A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). While refusing to interfere with the order of the trial court I had directed to deposit arrears of rent from 28th May to July, 1974 at the rate of Rs. 325/- per month by 9th August, 1975 in the trial court and then to go on depositing future rents within fifteen days of the each succeeding month.
3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the petitioner made deposit of a sum of Rs. 4.592A within the time granted by this Court but unfortunately for him, the amount on proper calculation was short by about Rs. 31. An application was accordingly filed by the landlord for striking out his defence and the learned Subordinate Judge by the impugned order has struck out his defence.
4. Mr. Kailash Roy, Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on the facts of the present case there was no non-compliance of the order of this Court and virtually it amounted to its substantial compliance. Learned counsel submitted that the penalty contemplated under Section 11A of the Act was intended for defaulting tenants and not to the case of the like where the tenant had all intentions to carry out the order and the direction, but by some error there was a slight mistake in making the calculation. This proposition was seriously controverted by Mr. Lala Deoki Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the landlord. According to him, the default having once been incurred it was absolute and no power lay in the court to condone any laches either it may be with respect to the amount Or with respect to the period.
5. I for myself, on examining the facts and circumstances of the case, could not feel persuaded to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the landlord and would hold that the deposit made by the petitioner which was although short by about Rs. 31A was a sufficient compliance of the orders of this Court and did not render the written statement to be struck off on the application of the theory of default in carrying out the order passed under Section 11A of the Act.
6. I would accordingly allow this application and direct that the defence of the petitioner against ejectment be restored, to its file. This order will however be subject to the condition that the petitioner must pay a sum of Rs. 200A to the landlord within a period of three weeks from today either in this Court or in the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs in this case.