KAMLA DEVI Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-landlord earlier filed a suit for eviction against their tenant-deceased Madanlal, which was registered as Civil Original Suit No. 26/89. In that suit ground for eviction was default in payment of rent by the tenant. In the above suit No. 26/89, the Trial Court determined the arrears of rent under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and directed defendant-tenant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent and monthly rent month by month during trial of the suit. The defendant complied with the court's order and paid the rent of the suit premises in the suit No. 26/89. Ultimately, the suit No. 26/89 of the plaintiff was decided by the judgment and decree dated 16. 2. 1991 and the court declared the tenant-defendant defaulter in payment of rent but no decree for eviction was passed against the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent by the tenant as, as per law in the case of first default in payment of rent, if tenant deposits arrears of rent and pays rent during trial within period provided for that then tenant is entitled for benefit once of avoiding eviction decree against him.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-landlord vehemently submitted that the tenant Madanlal himself was defaulter and that finding is not under challenge. He took the benefit of first default under the provisions of the Act of 1950. Such benefit is available to him only once in currency of his tenancy. For second default, according to learned counsel for the respondent the money order alleged to have been sent by the tenant on 30. 04. 1991 and, therefore, the notice for disclosing the bank account by the landlords could have been served within the period of 15 days after receipt of the money order back by the tenants, but he did not serve any notice till he died on 2. 08. 1991. The notice alleged to has been sent by the appellant No. 1 through her advocate on 4th Sept. , 1991, but no application under Section 19a was submitted in court in time and ultimately, the rent was deposited in court only on 25. 05. 1992. By that time, the tenant became defaulter in payment of rent as period of six months already passed. Not only this, but on 25. 05. 1992, the tenants deposited rent only for the period from 1. 04. 1991 to 3rd Sept. , 1991. The tent for the period from Sept. , 1991 was not paid for the reasons best known to the defendants-appellants. Therefore, this is not a case of even readyness and willingness of the tenants about the payment of the rent, rather it is clear case of willful default. LEARNED counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court in support of his contention that it is primary duty of the tenant to deposit the rent and for that purpose complete procedure has been given in Section 19a of the Act of 1950 and tenant can avoid decree for his eviction only by paying the rent to the landlord even rent is not accepted by the landlord. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. Ganpat Lal & Anr. reported in 1996 (1) RLW 17 (SC) held that the benefit to the tenant under Section 19a is available only when the conditions laid down in the provisions of Section 19a are satisfied by the tenant. In the present case, the tenant even did not deposit the rent under Section 19a of the Act in time nor he gave notice to landlord before that in time, therefore, the amount deposited by the tenant cannot be treated as valid payment of rent.