VERMA, J. - (1.) A suit for eviction was filed by the respondent plaintiff in November, 1985 against the appellant on the ground of recovery of arrears of rent, material alteration and nuisance etc. , in respect of the disputed premises.
(2.) VIDE order dated 10. 12. 1986, the rent Court had determined the provisional rent as required u/s. 13 (3) of the Rajasthan (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (here-in-after referred to as the Rent Act) with interest etc. VIDE another order dated 17. 7. 1987, the Rent Court had directed the appellant defendant to deposit month to month rent in the bank account of the plaintiff. But it was stated that no such rent had been deposited in the bank account and because of such defect, the defence of the appellant was ultimately struck off vide order dated 5. 2. 1992, which order is under challenge. It is the case of the appellant that the rent stood deposited in the court which is the admitted fact in the order impugned dated 5. 2. 1992 and, therefore, the impugned order could not have been passed. As per the order of the trial court, the following facts stand admitted; (1) the rent from 1. 6. 1991 to 3. 5. 1992 had been deposited in the bank accounts; (2) the rent prior to 1. 6. 1991 stood deposited in the court itself. Even though the full rent along with arrears etc. stood deposited for the period prior to 1. 6. 1991 in the court itself and for the period subsequent to 1. 6. 1991 in the bank account of the plaintiff, but the trial court observed that the appellant defendant was directed to deposit the rent in the bank account of the plaintiff in Account No. 265, State Bank of India, Vishwakarma Industrial Area Branch and for the reason that instead of depositing in the bank account, the rent had been deposited in the court and relying on 1971 (1) RCR 179 (1) to the effect that after the order dated 17. 7. 1987, the rent should have been deposited in the bank account and not in the court, the trial court had observed that even though rent had been deposited in the court, but that deposit cannot be considered a valid deposit in accordance with the order of the court as it should have been deposited only in the bank account. On such observations, the defence of the present appellant was struck off under sub-section (5) of Section 13. In the present case Sections 13 (3), 13 (4) and 13 (5) of the Rent Act are material sections which are reproduced as under: " 13 (3) -In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1), with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section, the court shall, on the first date of hearing or on any other date the court may fix in this behalf which shall not be more than three months after filing of the written statement and shall be before the framing of the issues, after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record to the landlord by the tenant. Such amount shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which such determination is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable up to the date of determination. Provided that while determining the amount under this sub-section, the court shall not take into account the amount of rent which was barred by limitation on the date of filing of the suit. 13 (4) -The tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the court under sub-section (3) within fifteen days from the date of such determination, or within such further time not exceeding three months, as may be extended by the court. The tenant shall also continue to deposit in court or pay to the landlord month by month, the monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which determination has been made, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month or within such further time not exceeding fifteen days, as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court under sub-section (3) 13 (5) -If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (4) on the date or within the time specified therein, the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. " Section 13 (3) (4) of the Rent Act provides that the court shall pass the orders for deposit and in case deposit is not made that should be considered as default and under sub-section (5) of Section 13, the defence is to be struck off.
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant states that the court is only to see whether the amount stands deposited or not and it shall not make any difference whether it is deposited in the court or in the bank account and even if there is a deviation from the order of the court in depositing the arrears of rent in the court instead of bank account, such deviation shall not and cannot amount to be considered as `default' under the Act. Per contra counsel for the respondents Shri P. C. Jain vehemently argued that the amount is to be deposited as per the directions of the court and if the court had directed that the amount should be deposited in the bank account of the landlord and instead the amount had been deposited in the court, even though technically it may not amount to default, but the appellant defendant was bound to comply with the orders of the court and non-compliance of the order in letter and spirit would result in attaching the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 13 and, therefore, the order of striking off the defence is legal and justified. Reliance is placed for such a proposition on a Single Bench judgment of this court in the case of Rajeev Kumar vs. Dr. Kailash Nath Bhargava & Ors. (2), wherein in view of the cumbersome provisions of the withdrawal from the treasury of the amount of rent deposited by the tenant is not effective and the landlords are suffering a lot in the process of withdrawal; this court had held that the judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the difficulties being felt by the landlords in withdrawing the amount and relying on circular No. 27 PI/december 3, 1996 on the subject of simplification of the procedure regarding refund of rent deposited u/s 13 (4) and 19-A (3) of the Rent Act, the procedure was adopted to opt for option from the landlord whether he would like the amount to be deposited in bank account, number of which was to be given by the landlord and such deposit would be without prejudice to the right of the parties concerned. The controversy in Rajiv Kumar's case (supra) was that the landlord had desired the amount to be deposited in the bank account which contention was accepted and the tenant was directed to deposit the amount in the bank account of the landlord. This authority does not say that in case the amount is not deposited in the Bank account and it is deposited in the court contrary to the direction of the trial court in such situation, the tenant is to be considered as if he is defaulter. Therefore, the facts of this authority are not relevant. ;