Ratan Lall Singh vs Messrs. Hind Estate Ltd.

P.N. Mookerjee, J.—This Rule arises out of a proceeding u/s 14(4) of the Rent Control Act of 1950. The learned Munsif made an order for certain deposits under that section, after giving the Defendant credit in respect of a sum of Rs. 3,000, alleged to have been paid by him to the Plaintiff on the rent account. There was non-compliance with the above order u/s 14(4) at some later stages. The result was that the written statement of the Defendant was struck out. Thereafter, the Defendant moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.

On behalf of the Defendant Petitioner, it has been urged before me that no order u/s 14(4) ought to have been made against the Defendant in the circumstances of the present case. It appears that, according to the Defendant, there was a sum of Rs. 3,000 deposited with the Plaintiff on rent account which, if taken into consideration, would show that there was no default in the payment of rent, as alleged in the plaint, and, accordingly, the Plaintiff would not be entitled to any decree for ejectment in the present suit. If the Defendant''s above allegation of fact be correct, possibly the Plaintiff''s suit would fail. In other words the Defendant may ultimately succeed in the suit on the strength of the above allegation. I am, however, expressing no final opinion on this point and no observation in this judgment will prejudice either party at the final hearing of the suit.

In the proceeding u/s 14(4), the learned Munsif appears to have prima facie accepted this story of deposit of Rs. 3,000 by the Defendant with the Plaintiff on rent account. In any event, this story has not been disbelieved and rejected. In the circumstances of this case, it seems to me that the fate of the Plaintiff''s present suit may well depend upon the truth or otherwise of this allegation of the Defendant about the deposit of Rs. 3,000 and that allegation appears to have been prima facie established. This is, accordingly, a case where no order should be passed u/s 14(4) in favour of the Plaintiff.

In the above view of the matter I set aside the orders, complained of, and direct instead that the suit be heard as expeditiously as possible. I must make it clear that both the orders, namely, the order, directing the defendant Petitioner to deposit arrear and current rents u/s 14(4), and the order striking out the defence for non-compliance therewith, are set aside and this Rule is made absolute. The Plaintiff''s application u/s 14(4) of the Rent Control Act of 1950 stands dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.