AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 204 wordsYatindra Singh J.
This is a writ petition against the order, dated 1981994 and 1951995 striking off the defence of the defendant petitioner.
The suit was filed on 3131993 and 2551993 was the first date of hearing. The trial Court struck off the defence by the order, dated 1981994 on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited rent from January, 1992 on the first date of hearing and during the pendency of the suit he was in arrears of rent. A revision filed against this order has been rejected. It has been submitted that part of rent was being deposited under Section 30, and the remaining part of rent could not be deposited due to mistake of the Counsel.
It has been stated in the affidavit that the entire rent till December, 1995 has been deposited.
In view of this I am of the opinion that it would be for the fitness of the case the order dated 1981994 and 1951995 should be quashed.
The matter is sent back for the decision on merit. It will be decided expeditiously. It is relevant to point out that the relationship in between the landlord and the tenants is not disputed.
