HANUMAN PRASAD Vs. GAINDI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application by the defendant-tenant raises an in-eresting question though a short one. The question is whether a tenant who having btained benefit under sec. 13a of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and viction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') again makes a default in the ayment of rent for six months is liable to have his defence against eviction struck out nder sec. 13 (6) of the Act on account of his failure to deposit or pay any amount eferred to in sub sec. (4) or sub-sec. (5) ? It arises in the following circumstances : -

(2.) THE defendant-petitioner took the suit shop on rent from the plaintiff-non-etitioner on 1-12-1953 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. THE plaintiff filed a suit for jectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the uit sec. 13-A was introduced and in accordance with sec. 13-A the tenant paid the ent, interest and costs with the result that the suit for ejectment was dismissed on 4. 7. 1966. THEreafter the plaintiff brought a second suit for ejectment on 4-7-1968 inter alia on the ground that the defendant had again committed default in payment of rent for the period commencing from 18-1966 to 19-6-1968. THE date of first hearing of the suit was 22-11-1968. After taking one adjournment the defendant filed written statement on 3-1-1969. He pleaded inter alia that he remitted monthly rent to the land-lord time and again by money orders but the land-lord went on refusing with a view to create a ground for ejecting him on the ground of default. He further pleaded that inspite of refusal of the landlord to accept the money-orders, he deposited the full arrears of rent under sec. 19a of the Act and nothing was due from him upto 17-8-68. Thus his case was that he had not committed any default on payment of rent and the suit for ejectment on the ground of default was not maintainable. On 25-2-1969 the defendant submitted an application under sec. 13 (4) of the Act stating that he had deposited an amount by way of rent more than claimed by the plaintiff, yet by way of abundant caution he prayed that it may be determined whether after making allowance for the default under sec. 19a, any amount remained due from him, and if so a direction may he given in accordance with the law so that the defendant may deposit the same. This application was opposed by the landlord who filed a written reply wherein he contended that the defendant had already taken benefit of sec. 13a in the previous suit and therefore he was not entitled to save himself from ejectment by making the deposit under sec. 13 (4 ). After hearing arguments on this application the Court by its order dated 26-4-1969 directed that an issue we framed whether the defendant has committed a second default in payment of rent. It was, however, held that the application under sec. 13 (4) was not maintainable. THE case then proceeded to trial. After some evidence had been recorded, the plaintiff made an application on 15-7-1971 under sec. 13 (6) of the Act praying that since the tenant's application under sec. 13 (4) of the Act had been dismissed and he had not deposited the arrears of rent along with interest on the first date of hearing i. e. 22. 11. 1968 his defence may be struck out. THE learned Munsiff by his order dated 2-8-1971 allowed the application and struck out the defence of the tenant against eviction.