S.C.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the defendant Ram Chander against the order dated 3rd March, 1979, passed by the Civil Judge, Sirohi dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14th December, 1978 passed by the Munsiff, Abu Road, in civil suit No. 157 of 1975. By the order dated 14th February, 1978, the Munsiff, Abu Road struck out the offence of the petitioner on the ground that he had committed default in the payment of rent during the pendency of the suit.
(2.) THE facts briefly stated, are that there is a shop situate at Abu Road belonging to Nanakram respondent. The said shop was let out by the defendant to the petitioner. On 3rd September, 1976, the respondent filed a suit (suit No. 167/76) in the Court of the Munsiff, Abu Road against the petitioner for his ejectment from the said shop and for the recovery of Rs. 505/ - on account of arrears of rent. In the said suit it is alleged that the shop had been let out at the rate of Rs. 50/ - per month and the tenancy was a monthly tenancy beginning from the 1st date of each calendar month and that the petitioner had failed to pay the rent for the said premises since 1st December. 1975 inspite of notice and as he has committed default in the payment of rent, he is liable to be evicted. In the said suit the respondent landlord has also pleaded that the shop is required reasonably and bonafide for the use of the respondent and his family. In the aforesaid suit the petitioner has filed his written statement dated 22nd November, 1976 wherein he has pleaded that he has not committed any default in the payment of rent in as much as the rent for the shop had been agreed to be paid on yearly basis and that the respondent had deliberately stopped receiving rent for the shop since 1st December, 1975, although the same had been tendered by the petitioner to him on several occasions and that a money order for the rent for the period 1st November, 1975 to 31st May, 1976 was also sent by the petitioner and the same was received back with the remark 'refused', and, therefore, the petitioner is not a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. In his written statement the petitioner has denied that the shop is required by the respondent reasonably and bonafide for himself and the members of his family. The respondent has filed a replication dated the 14th February, 1977 wherein he has denied that the rent for the shop had been agreed to be paid on yearly basis and has stated that the rent was payable at the end of each month. In the replication aforesaid the respondent has denied that the petitioner has tendered rent for the period subsequent to 1st December, 1975 or that he has refused to accept the same. The respondent has further denied that any money order for the rent for the period 1st November, 1975 to 31st May, 1976 was sent to him. The Munsiff Abu Road by his order dated 21st March, 1977 determined that the amount of rent payable for the period from 1st December, 1975 to 28th February, 1977 was Rs. 750/ - and the interest payable on the same was Rs. 26.25 and the total amount payable by the petitioner to the respondent was Rs. 776.25 which amount the petitioner was required to deposit within a period of one and a half month. By the order aforesaid the petitioner was further directed to deposit the future rent at the rate of Rs. 50/ - P.M. in accordance with law. It appears that the petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs. 776.26 in accordance with the order dated 21st March 1977 and also deposited the rent for the months of March to June, 1977. but the rent for the month of July, 1977, which had to be deposited by 15th August, 1977 was tendered on 14th September, 1977 alongwith the rent for the months of August and September, 1977. On 17th October, 1977 the respondent moved an application before the Munsiff, Abu Road for striking out the defence of the petitioner on the ground that the rent for the month of July, 1977 which should have been deposited by the 15th August 1977 was not deposited by that date and thus the petitioner had committed default in the payment of rent. In his reply dated 31st October 1977 to the aforesaid application the petitioner pleaded that he had not committed any default in the payment of rent and that there was no ground for striking cut the defence of the petitioner. In his aforesaid reply the petitioner also pleaded that in case it was found that the petitioner was a defaulter in the payment of rent for the month of July, 1977, the time for depositing the aforesaid rent may be extended. The aforesaid reply dated 31st October, 1977 was subsequently amended by the petitioner on 6th December, 1977 and as a result of the aforesaid amendment the only plea which was raised by the Petitioner in his reply to the application of the respondent dated, 17th October, 1977 was that the petitioner had not committed any default in the payment of rent and the defence of the petitioner could not be struck out. The Munsiff, Abu Road, by his order dated 14th February, 1978 found that the under for depositing the rent for the month of July, 1977 was submitted by the petitioner on 14th September, 1977 and as it was submitted more than 15 days after the expiry of the date by which the rent was payable, the period for depositing the rent should not be extended and that the petitioner had committed default in the payment of rent, and, therefore, his defence was liable to the struck out. The petitioner filed an appeal (CAO15/79) against the order dated 14th February, 1978 passed by the Munsiff, Abu Road. The said appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Sirohi, by his order dated, 3rd March, 1979 on the view that under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', the defendant during the pendency of the suit is liable to deposit, the rent in accordance, with the said provisions and that the Court has the power to extend the time for depositing the rent only by 15 days and that the court cannot grant extension for a period longer than 15 days. The Civil Judge held that the petitioner had submit the tender for depositing the rent for the month of July 1977 on 14th September, 1977, i.e. long after the expiry of 15 days, period, the petitioner was clearly a defaulter in the matter of depositing the rent and his defence was liable to be struck out by the Munsiff. The Civil Judge, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Civil Judge dated the 3rd March, 1979, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. Shri K.C. Samdaria, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that under Section 13(4) of the Act the tenant is required to deposit in court or pay to the land -lord the monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which determination has been made month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month or within such further time, not exceeding 15 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) and that in case the tenant fails to pay the rent in accordance with Sub -section (4) on the date or within the time specified therein, the deference against eviction can be struck out by the court under Sub -section (5) of Section of the Act. The submission of Shri Samadaria is, however, that the provisions of Sub -sections (4) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act are not attracted to the present case in as much as no order determining the amount had been passed by the Court under Sub -section (3) of Section 13 of the Act in the present case and in the absence of an order under Sub -section (3) the provisions of Sub -sections (4) and (5) of Section 13 do not come into operation. The submission of Shri Samadria is that the order dated 31st March, 1977 passed by the Munsiff, Abu Road, cannot be regarded as an order passed under Sub -section (3) of Section 13 of the Act.
(3.) BEFORE dealing with the contention urged by Shri Samdaria in support of his submission that the order dated 21st March, 1977 was not an order passed under Sub -section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, it will be convenient to set out the provisions contained in Sub -sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of Section 13 of the Act, as amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act, 1976, Rajasthan Act 15 of 1976). The said provisions read as under: Sub -section (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 -sections, the Court shall, on the first date of hearing or on any other date as the court may fix in this behalf which shall not be more than three months after filing of the written statements and shall be before the framing of the issues, after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. Such amount shall be established 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 there to 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 percent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable upto 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 the filing of the suit. Sub -section (4) The tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the court under sec -section (3) within fifteen days from the date of such determination, or within such further time, not exceeding three month, 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 consequent to the period upto which the 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). Sub -section (5) If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in Sub -section (4) (xxx) 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. Sub -section (6) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by Sub -section (4) no decree for eviction on the ground specified in Clause (a) of Sub -section (1) shall be passed by the court against him. Provided that a tenant shall not be entitled to any relief under this Sub -section, if having obtained such benefit or benefits under Section 13 A in respect of any such accommodation if he again makes a default in the payment of rent of that accommodation for six months. Sub -section (7) If in any suit referred to in Sub -section (3) there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the court shall decide the dispute finally at the time of decision of the suit and may, at that time, pass such orders regarding costs or interest, as having regard to the circumstances of the case, it deems fit. Sub -section (8) In case at the time of decision of the suit. (a) the court finds that the amount of rent provisionally determined by it under Sub -section (3) and deposited in court or paid to the landlord under Sub -section (4) is less than the amount of rent finally decided as payable by the tenant, the court, shall pass a decree for the balance amount against the tenant. (b) the court finds that the amount determined and deposited or paid as aforesaid in excess of the amount of rent finally decided as payable by the tenant, the court shall, in the event of passing a decree for eviction against the tenant on ground other than set forth. In Clause (a) of Sub -section (1), also pass a decree in favour of the tenant for such excess amount deposited or paid by him and in the event of dismissing the suit for eviction it shall direct in the decree that such excess amount will be adjusted by the landlord against future rent payable by the tenant. ;