Skip to content


Bhagwan Sahai Vs. Hari Narain - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 332 of 1970
Judge
Reported in1971WLN(UC)3
AppellantBhagwan Sahai
RespondentHari Narain
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....premises (control of rent & eviction) act, 1950 but the deposits have not been held to be in accordance with law inasmuch as the defendant failed to prove tender of rent month to month to the landlord......not been held to be in accordance with law inasmuch as the defendant failed to prove tender of rent month to month to the landlord. the deposits have also been made month to month but they are made on irregular intervals.3. after having argued the cases for some time on the question that the interpretation put on section 19-a by the lower courts was not correct and that the evidence regarding tender had not been correctly appreciated by the court below, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case he would only press for grant of one year's time to the tenant to give vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord.4. as already stated above the plea of the landlord for ejectment is not based on the ground of personal.....
Judgment:

C.M. Lodha, J.

1. A decree for ejectment from a residential house has been passed against the appellant tenant by both the courts below on the ground of default in payment of rent.

2. The rent due upto the date of the suit was admittedly deposited under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 but the deposits have not been held to be in accordance with law inasmuch as the defendant failed to prove tender of rent month to month to the landlord. The deposits have also been made month to month but they are made on irregular intervals.

3. After having argued the cases for some time on the question that the interpretation put on Section 19-A by the lower courts was not correct and that the evidence regarding tender had not been correctly appreciated by the court below, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case he would only press for grant of one year's time to the tenant to give vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord.

4. As already stated above the plea of the landlord for ejectment is not based on the ground of personal necessity. It further appears that the rent which had fallen due upto the date of the suit had been in fact deposited under Section 19A of the Act & it it also relevant to point out that this appeal even though filed on 22-9-1970 has come up for hearing at the request of the parties at a very early date. In view of all these circumstances, I consider it a fit case in which the appellant's prayer for grant of time should be allowed.

5. Accordingly, I hereby direct that the appellant shall not be evicted from the premises in question for a period of nine months from today provided the appellant deposits in Court or pays to the landlord against the latter's receipt arrears of rent, if any, upto the end of December, 1970 by 15th February, 1971 and also goes on paying the rent falling due from 1-1-1971 within 15 days of its falling due. In case the appellant commits default in complying with this condition the landlord shall be entitled to take out execution of the decree for ejectment forthwith.

6. With these observations the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //