S. K. Mal Lodha, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel. The learned Munsif, by his judgment dated December 23, 1972 decreed the suit for ejectment against the defendant Mohd. Sadique, who is now represented by the appellant, who are his legal representatives. The learned Munsif held that the suit as instituted was maintainable and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for ejectment as the defendant-tenant has committed default in payment of rent under Section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) (for short the Act'). Aggrieved, the legal representatives of the defendant want in appeal. The learned Civil Judge, Churu dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment of the learned Munsif dated December 23, 1972. Hence this second appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has raised three contentions before me:- (1) that the lower appellate court has seriously erred in holding that the defendant was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act; (2) that the suit as instituted by the plaintiffs was not maintain- able; and (3) that adequate opportunity was not given to the defendant to lead evidence on the question whether he is a defaulter.
(3.) Having perused the pleadings and the evidence on record, I am satisfied that the defendant has correctly been held to be a defaulter. The suit as instituted by the plaintiffs is maintainable. Ramnarain v. Kishorelal, 1963 R. L. W. 459 and Nandlal Girdharilal and another v. Gulamnabi Pamalbhai and another, 1972 R.C.J. 889 are of no assistance. So far as the last contention that adequate opportunity was not given to lead evidence, is concerned, suffice it to say that it was neither taken in the memo of appeal under S. 96 C. P. C. nor was it raised before the appellate court. In view of the pleadings relating to the point of default, no evidence could possibly be led by the defendant to prove that he is not a defaulter.;