(1.)This is a tenant's appeal, putting in issue the judgment and decree of the High Court, directing the tenant to be evicted from the suit accommodation - a shop.
(2.)The facts necessary for decision in this appeal are not in controversy. The suit shop is owned by the respondent and is held by the tenant-appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 22/-. Earlier, there was a default in payment of rent by the tenant, for which, on the ground available under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short), the landlord-respondent had filed a suit for recovery of rent and for eviction. Let this suit be referred to as 'first suit'. During the pendency of this suit, the tenant complied with sub-section (4) of Section 13 by making the deposit of rent, as contemplated therein. On 14-11-1983, the trial Court refused to pass a decree for eviction against the tenant, holding that although the tenant had committed a default in payment of rent before the institution of suit, but, in view of his having complied with the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 13, he was entitled to benefit of relief against eviction. The landlord preferred an appeal. We have perused the contents of memo of appeal made available for our perusal by the learned Counsel for the respondent. It shows that before the appellate Court, the landlord had continued to press for a decree for eviction being passed against the tenant under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. The grievance raised by the landlord was that the tenant had not strictly complied with the provisions of sub-section (4) and, therefore, the trial Court should have directed the defence against eviction to be struck out under sub-section (5) and then passed a decree for eviction, holding the tenant not entitled to the benefit of sub-section (6). The occasion for deciding this appeal on merits did not arise inasmuch as, on 12-4-1993, the landlord did not press for the decision of appeal on merits and, instead, sought for withdrawal of the appeal, which was permitted by the appellate Court.
(3.)On 21-8-1984, much before the withdrawal of the appeal as abovestated, the landlord had filed a second suit against the tenant, praying for a decree of eviction, alleging that the tenant had committed a second default by not paying or tendering the rent to the landlord for the period between 5th November, 1983 and 28th July, 1984. Admittedly the period of second default alleged as providing cause of action to the landlord in the second suit for eviction, was covered by the period during which the first appeal preferred by the appellant against the decree of the trial Court passed in the first suit was pending. It is also admitted that during the pendency of that appeal, the tenant had continued to deposit the rent in the Court month by month, as contemplated by sub-section (4) of Section 13 for the entire period during which the appeal was pending. The trial Court in the second suit, formed an opinion that after the decision by the trial Court in the first suit, the tenant ought to have paid or tendered rent to the landlord in accordance with Section 19-A of the Act and any payment by way of deposit made by the tenant in the Court during the pendency of the appeal against the decree in first suit could not come to his rescue, as it was not a payment or tender, as contemplated by Section 19-A of the Act. The trial Court, therefore, directed the second suit for eviction to be decreed by holding the tenant guilty of second default within the meaning of proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 13. The decree was reversed in appeal preferred by the tenant. However, the High Court has, by its impugned judgment and decree, set aside the decree of the appellate Court and restored the decree passed by the trial Court.