“Sufficient cause”, as required by rent controller for non deposit of rent within statutory period, if shown by the tenant that he could not deposit the same as advocate did not take necessary steps and he later changed the advocate and also informed the controller his willingness to pay the arrears, if no affidavit of the previous advocate was submitted but Rojnama entries do suggest that on 2 previous occasion the advocate was not personally present and tenant himself had to submit the Vakalatnama of his advocate, can the controller rule that tenant has not shown sufficient causes?

“Sufficient cause”, as required by rent controller for non deposit of rent within statutory period, if shown by the tenant that he could not deposit the same as advocate did not take necessary steps and he later changed the advocate and also informed the controller his willingness to pay the arrears, if no affidavit of the previous advocate was submitted but Rojnama entries do suggest that on 2 previous occasion the advocate was not personally present and tenant himself had to submit the Vakalatnama of his advocate, can the controller rule that tenant has not shown sufficient causes?

While construing as to what is a ‘sufficient cause’, the courts normally look into various aspects of the case. The matter is solely at the discretion of the court concerned and if a good cause is shown, the courts normally condone any irregularity or default by a party. It is but obvious that in the situation mentioned by you, the previous advocate who has defaulted in depositing the arrears of rent, would not give his affidavit admitting his default. In such case you should file your own affidavit and further bring the proofs which would show that you had given the amount of arrears to the advocate for being deposited and it was on account of the default of the advocates that the needful could not be done. If the same is done the court would construe the same as a sufficient cause.

Book Appointment