Murlidhar vs Pavan Kumar Jain on 19 February, 2013
From the aforesaid facts, which are undisputed and
based on the averments of the appellant himself, it is clear
that the appellant has not made payment or deposited the
rent as required by Section 13 of the Act and has also
committed such default for a continuous long period of time
without seeking any leave or condonation of the delay in
deposit. In the circumstances, the appellate Court, on the
basis of the averments of the appellant himself made in his
application dated 10-10-2012, has passed the decree of
eviction against the appellant. From a perusal of the facts
as well as the provisions of law it is clear that no fault can
be found with the impugned judgment and decree, more
so, in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of Jamnalal and others v. Radheshyam, (2000)
4 SCC 380 as well as by this Court in the cases of Sushila
Shrivastava v. Nafees Ahamed and another, 2001(2)
MPLJ 613 and Harishankar Sharma v. Shrikrishan
Dubey 2008(1) MPLJ 614.