C.R. 242/04 – 242/2004 - Bhajan Lal Vs. Om Prakash. Order dt.8.7.08 1/2 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.242/2004 Bhajan Lal Vs. Om Prakash. Date of order : 8th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. R.K. Singhal for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar) for the respondents. Mr. J.K. Bhaiya ) --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.7.2004 whereby the learned District Judge, Ganganagar confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissed the appeal of the tenant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner tenant submits that since the trial court had decided that the arrears of rent for a period of 28.8.2001 to 28.2.2003 for 18 months at the rate of Rs.1250/- per month totaling to Rs.22,500/- and interest of Rs.1013/- total Rs.23513/- may be paid to the landlord or be deposited in his bank account and thereafter every month rent of Rs.1250/- should be paid before 15th of next month, therefore, the petitioner tenant remained under a bonafide belief that 15 days time would be counted from the end of calender month. 4. This submissions is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent-landlord Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar, who submits that tenancy C.R. 242/04 – 242/2004 - Bhajan Lal Vs. Om Prakash. Order dt.8.7.08 2/2 commenced on 26th and ended on 25th of the next month and, therefore, the provisional rent determined by the learned trial court applied to the month commencing from 26th to 25th of next month, therefore, 15 days period would be computed accordingly and since there was delay in payment, the defence was rightly stuck down under Section 13(5) of the Act. 5. Having heard learned counsel, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned orders. If there was any doubt about the operative portion of the order to the petitioner tenant, he ought to have applied to the concerned Court for clarification, if any. Learned counsel has taken it too far by submitting that by direction of the Court to pay arrears upto 28.2.2003, the period of tenancy itself extended upto end of the calender month and, therefore, in accordance with the Section 13(3) of the Act, the rent should be taken to have been determined till the end of calender month. 6. This Court does not find any force in this submission of the petitioner, as the period of tenancy had commenced on 26th of the previous month and ended on 25th of the next month.. The said submission of the petitioner tenant has thus, no legs to stand upon. 7. The revision petition is found to be devoid of merit, the same is dismissed. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.72 babulal/-