1975 (2) TMI 112 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal and restoration of the main eviction petition.
2. Revival of interlocutory orders under Section 15(2) of the Act.
3. Striking off the defense under Section 15(7) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal and Restoration of the Main Eviction Petition:
The primary issue revolves around the dismissal of the main eviction petition on 17th February 1966 due to the non-appearance of the respondent landlady. The petition was later restored on 5th February 1969 by the Rent Control Tribunal. The legal representatives of the tenant argued that the interlocutory order dated 24th September 1965, passed under Section 15(2) of the Act, lapsed upon dismissal and did not revive upon restoration of the main petition. The court, however, found that under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Order 9, Rule 8, and Rule 9, the restoration of the petition reinstates all previous proceedings and interim orders as if the dismissal had not occurred.

2. Revival of Interlocutory Orders under Section 15(2) of the Act:
The appellants contended that the interlocutory order requiring the deposit of rent lapsed with the dismissal of the main petition and needed to be reissued upon restoration. The court rejected this argument, citing various precedents from the High Courts of Madras, Patna, and Allahabad, which supported the view that upon restoration, all prior orders and proceedings revive and continue from the point of interruption. The court emphasized that the procedural rules of the Civil Procedure Code apply, making it unnecessary to reissue the interlocutory order upon restoration of the main petition.

3. Striking Off the Defense under Section 15(7) of the Act:
The respondent landlady filed an application on 18th February 1970 to strike off the defense of the appellants due to non-payment of rent for December 1969, January 1970, and April 1970. The Additional Controller struck off the defense on 24th September 1970, a decision upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal. The court held that the appellants violated the terms of the order under Section 15(2) of the Act by failing to deposit the required rent after the restoration of the main petition. The court noted that the discretionary power under Section 15(7) of the Act was exercised appropriately by the Controller and affirmed by the Tribunal, and thus, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with this discretion in a second appeal.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the restoration of the main eviction petition reinstates all prior interlocutory orders, including those under Section 15(2) of the Act. The appellants were bound to comply with these orders post-restoration, and their failure to do so justified the striking off of their defense under Section 15(7) of the Act. The High Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the consistency of these rulings with established legal principles and precedents.