9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (12) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 64/8/- and with effect from August 1, 1959 the rent was claimed at ₹ 70.95 np. 2. This application was resisted by the tenant who in his reply dated August 1, 1960 stated that the rate of rent had continued to be at ₹ 64-8-0 and only ₹ 516/- was due at the rate of ₹ 64/8/- as arrears upto June 30, 1960. He added that he was prepared to deposit it. 3. The Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, passed orders on the application on August 1, 1960. The relevant portion of the order ran thus: As regards the application under Section 13(5) of the Rent Control Act the defendant has no objection to deposit the arrears of rent and future rent month by month at the rate of ₹ 64/8/- per mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in Kanahiya Lal Balkishan Das v. Om Prakash Sharma, Civil Revn. No. 583 of 1958 D/- 23-10-1962 (Punj) the learned Senior Sub-Judge held that the Court could not in any circumstances extend the time for payment fixed in the order under Section 13(5) and could not condone the default. On this view he dismissed the appeal. 8. The tenant then approached the High Court of Punjab with a petition under Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. One of the grounds taken before the High Court was that the appellate court had ignored Section 57 of the Act of 1958. The High Court however dismissed the application summarily. 9. The present appeal has been filed against the High Court's order, after obtaining s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sections 1 to 7 of the new Act. It appears clear to us on such comparison that the provisions are substantially similar with only slight modifications. One modification is that while under Section 13(5) the application by the landlord had to be for an order on the tenant-defendant to deposit month by month rent at a rate at which it was last paid in all suits for ejectments Section 15 of the new Act makes a distinction between cases where the recovery of possession is sought on, the ground of arrears of rent having been left unpaid within two months of the service of notice of demand and other ejectment proceedings. In the first class of cases the Controller can make an order for payment of rent at the rate at which it was last paid while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. On this comparison of the provision of Section 13(5) of the old Act with those in Section 15 of the new Act we have not doubt that this is a case of slight modification by the new Act of the previous provisions in the same matter and so on the authority in the decision in Sobti's case C. A. No. 392 of 1963 D/- 29-8-1963 : the provisions as modified by Section 15(7) have to be applied to the present suit. The result on such application would be that the Court would not be bound to strike out the defence against ejectment but may or may not do so on a consideration of the circumstances. 14. That the Sub-Judge who made in original order or the Senior Sub-Judge, who confirmed it on appeal, did not take the provisions of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the question of the nature of mistake of law under which the High Court may properly exercise its revisional powers did not strictly arise for consideration. Even so, that question appears to have been argued before the Court and the Court gave its decision. Mr. Justice Hidayatullah speaking for the majority stressed the distinction between appeal and revision and stated that the phrase according to law in Section 35 of the Act referred to the decision as a whole and was not to be equated with errors of law or of fact simpliciter. The majority also expressed its concurrence with the observations of Beaumont C. J., in Bell and Co. v. Waman Hemraj, with regard to the scope of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. These ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory duty. This is, therefore, in our opinion, clearly a case in which the trial had not been in accordance with law. 17. Mr. Pathak emphasised that apparently the attention of the Courts had not been drawn to the provisions of Section 57. Even if this be so, this does not alter the position. While it is true to say that Courts dispose of cases on the basis of the submissions made by Counsel, it is not possible to say that the omission of Counsel absolves a Court from the duty of following clear provisions of law. We do not think that the omission of the tenant's Counsel to draw the Court's attention to the provisions of Section 57 can be a reason for the High Court to refuse to interfere. In our opinion, this was a proper c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
