KANTA BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) APPELLANT Heeralal was the defendant in the suit filed against him by the respondent plaintiffs for ejectment of a shop on the ground of default in payment of rent. The defendant in his written statement defied the allegation of his being a defaulter in payment of rent on the ground that the tenancy was yearly and not monthly and he had deposited the amount of sent in the Court under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Munsif framed five issues which translated into English read as under: 1. Whether the defendant had been held defaulter by the judgment dated 10 -12 -76 in Civil Suit No. 32/74 and had again committed default and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the decree for eviction against the defendant. 2. Whether the tenancy is yearly and not monthly and what is its effect on the suit. 3. What is the effect of decision of issue no 2 in suit no 32/74 and the suit being dismissed on the proceeding of the present case. 4. Whether the defendant has deposited the rent from Kartik Sudi 1 Samvat Year 2033 for one year in the Court under Section 19A and what Is its effect on the suit. 5. Relief.
(2.) THE learned Munsif heard the arguments on issue no. 1 and by his judgment dated 26 -11 -77 struck out the defence of the defendant on the ground that he had committed the default in payment of rent for a period of more than sis months second time. The learned Munsif held that there is no other question of notice etc. involved in the cast, and therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiff with an order that the defendant would give the vacant possession of the shop to the plaintiff's within a period of two months. Plaintiffs were held entitled to the amount oeposited in the court aid also to an interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount of rent remaining due from the date of the filing of the suit till realisation. Being aggrieved by that judgment and decree, tie defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Churu who transferred the case to the Court of Civil Judge, Churu. The learned Civil Judge by his judgment dated 17 -5 -79 dismissed the appeal. It is against tie judgment of the nut appellate court that the defendant has come in this Second Appeal.
(3.) FOLLOWING two substantial questions of law are found to be involved an this appeal: 1. Whether the trial court acted according to law in striking out the defence of the defendant. 2. Whether the suit could be decreed without trial of issues, which arise from the pleadings of the parties? ;