AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahajan, J.—This petition for revision is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority allowing the eviction of the tenant on the landlords'' petition. The eviction was claimed on two grounds -
failure of the tenant to pay rent from 1st February, 1958 to 31st January, 1962; and
that the premises were unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
In the first instance, the order of eviction was passed ex parte. The tenant applied for setting aside of the ex-parte order. The same was set aside on the 18th July, 1962, and on that date the Court gave time to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. The tenant went away to fetch money but he never turned up. In this view of the matter, the Rent Controller allowed the petition, as according to him the first date of hearing was the 18th July, 1962, though the contention before him by the tenant was that the first date of hearing was the 25th July, 1962, the date on which the written statement had to be filed. On appeal, the Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the Rent Controller. It is against this decision that the present petition for revision has been filed.
It is not disputed that the first date of hearing would be the 18th July, 1962, on which date the ex-parte order was set aside. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to Manohar Lal v. Bal Raj (1953) 55 P.L.R. 295.
Only two contentions have been raised before me (1) that the tenant was sending money orders after money orders and they were being refused by the landlady and, therefore, there was a valid tender; and (2) that on the 18th July, 1962, when the ex parte order was set aside, the Rent Controller ordered that the petition be re-registered. On the basis of this order, it is contended that the first date of hearing would be the date of hearing after re-registration i.e., the date for written statement.
So far as the first contention is concerned, it was not agitated either before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, it cannot be allowed to be raised at the stage of revision.
As regards the second contention, I am unable to agree with this contention. No fresh notice is required under law after re-registration when a matter has been restored after it had been dismissed in default. As a matter of fact, there is no second petition which has been filed. It is the original petition which has been revived, and, therefore, as held by Soni in J. Manohar Lal''s case, the first date of hearing would be the date on which the ex-parte order has been set aside. Moreover, it was found as a fact by the Rent Controller that the tenant offered to deposit rent on the 18th July, 1962, and for that purpose took time and, thereafter did not turn up. Therefore, it must be held that the tenant knew the state of law that on the I8th July, 1962, the deposit had to be made. Why he did not make the deposit on the 18th July, 1962 is not ex-plained.
For the reasons given above, this petition fails and is dismissed.
Counsel for the tenant prays that he may be given time to vacate the premises. I allow the tenant three months'' time to vacate the premises from today.
The respondents will have their costs.