MISRA, J. - (1.) THE appellant-herein was the defendant in a suit for eviction against whom the decree has been passed.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent had filed the suit for eviction against the defendant-appellant u/sec. 13 (1) (f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, the Act of 1950') which lays down that the tenant is entitled to be evicted from the rented premises, if he is guilty of mis- representation in any manner denying the title of his landlord. THE specific provision to that effect is reproduced as follows:- "13. Eviction of tenants. @1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant (XXX) so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied - (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) "13 (1) (f) that the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord and the latter has not waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant; or' In view of this provision, the suit by the landlord was filed alleging that he had misrepresented before the Telephone Department treating himself to be the owner of the house and permitted one Dinesh Parwani to obtain the telephone connection in the premises. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that the whole idea of this clause is to prevent the defendant from misrepresenting himself as a landlord or playing fraud upon the landlord in any manner by obtaining water connection, electricity connection or obtaining rent from any other person by misrepresenting himself as a landlord. It is no doubt true that even if this clause had not been incorporated u/s. 13 of the Act of 1950, a declaratory suit to avoid any dispute regarding title and possession would be maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure before a competent Court, but it appears that to safeguard the interest of the landlord Cl. (f) of See. 13 has been incorporated under the Act of 1950 which is a ground for eviction. Hence, in the instant case, if the two Courts of facts - the trial Court as also the First Appellate Court have recorded a finding against the defendant-appellant to the effect and that he is guilty of misrepresentation 1)v illegally projecting himself as a landlord of the suit premises and that is a legal ground to pass a decree of eviction, it is not possible to interfere with the same in absence of any substantial question of law inspite of hearing the counsel for the parties. The Counsel for t he respondent-landlord further, relied upon a Judgment Mool Chand & Anr. vs. Ishwarlal & Anr. (1) wherein the learned Single Judge took the view that even if the tenant deposited the House-Tax before the Municipal Board claiming himself to be the owner of the house, the same amounts to denial of title by a tenant against the landlord and that was treated as a legal and valid ground for eviction. It was therefore submitted that a similar situation exists in this case wherein the defendant-ap-pellant has been held guilty of misrepresentation relying on cogent evidence recorded by the two Court of facts, which is substantial ground of eviction as per the Act of 1950. Thus, this appeal has no merit and hence it stands dismissed. The counsel for the defendant-appellant, however, made a fervent appeal that the defendant-appellant has been doing business in the premises for the last 20 years and hence some reasonable time be granted to him to vacate the premises. The counsel for the parties have deliberated on this and ultimately it is considered appropriate to grant six months time to the defendant- appellant to vacate the premises to be counted from today provided the usual undertaking is filed by the defendant- appellant within a period of 10 days. The defendant. appellant thus would be liable for eviction on or before 9. 12. 2001. . ;