(i) this court is constrained to form a firm conclusion qua
the statutory phrase "if the tenant pays the amount due
within a period of 30 days from the date of order" (ii)
hence carrying the apt connotation qua the tenant, for
rather saving his eviction, from the demised premises, his
being ejoined to liquidate, the, judicially pronounced
liability, appertaining, to his falling into arrears of rent, by
his not depositing, the rent before the learned Rent
Controller, rather his proceeding to make the apt
payment, directly hence to the landlord concerned, (iii)
the afore conclusion falls in tandem, with, the verdict
pronounced by this Court in CMPMO No.156 of 2015,
titled as Sanjay Kumar vs. Pushpa Devi, decided on 6th
::: Downloaded on - 04/12/2018 22:56:37 :::HCHP
...18...
Further,
according to the learned counsel, this judgment relied upon by
the petitioner has not been dealt with/taken into account while
delivering the subsequent judgment in Civil Revision No.128
of 2012, case titled Hans Raj Khimta vs. Smt. Kanwaljeet
Kaur alias Sardarni Babli, decided on 29th February, 2016 and
in CMPMO No.156 of 2015, case titled Sanjay Kumar vs. Smt.
::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2023 20:32:55 :::CIS 4
Pushpa Devi, decided on 6th January, 2016. Since, the
subsequent judgment do not take into account the previous
.
"(i). Issue an order or direction to the Family Court, Agra to decide the Misc Application No. 61 of 2023 (Smt. Puspa Vs. Sanjay @ Sanju), under Order 09 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. in Case No. 1860 of 2017 (Sanjay @ Sanju Vs. Smt. Puspa), under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra within stipulated time preferably on the next date fixed ."