KEJRIWAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 25. 5. 1989, passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Baran, by which the said Court rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner for deleting Issue numbers 1 and 6. .
(2.) THE brief relevant facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit for eviction on several grounds including the ground of default in payment of rent. THE trial court determined the arrears of rent under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the 'act' ). Later on the trial court framed issues in the suit. Issue No. 1 is as to whether the defendant has committed default in the payment of rent? Issue No. 6 relates to the question as to whether the defendant No. 2 has been wrongly impleaded as a party in the suit and, therefore, the said defendant is entitled to damages to the tune of Rs. 500/ -. On 3. 2. 1987, the defendant-petitioner submitted an application for deleting Issue Nos. 1 and 6. This application was rejected by the trial court vide its order dated 25. 5. 1989. Being aggrieved with the said order, the defendant-petitioner has filed the present revision application. It has been argued by the counsel for the defendant-petitioner that after the deposit of arrears of rent as determined by the trial court under Section 13 (3) of the Act, the Issue No. 1 has become redundant and should be deleted. He further argued that the rent has been deposited and when rent has already been deposited, no decree for eviction on the ground of default can be passed as provided under Section 13 (6) of the aforesaid Act. Under these circumstances, he argued that there is no necessity of continuing the Issue No. 1. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this court in Shyam Lal and another vs. Upbhokta Sahakari Samiti, Jodhpur, (1 ). On the other hand, the counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner argued that the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case, the suit was based only on the ground of default and there were no other grounds. When the defendant deposited the arrears of rent determined by the trial court under Section 13 (3) of the Act, there was no necessity of continuing the suit. But in the present case, there are other grounds of eviction and as such suit has to be continued. He argued that sub-section (4) of Section 13, provides that the tenant shall not only pay or deposit in Court the determined amount but shall also continue to pay or deposit the monthly rent before 15th of the next succeeding month. He argued that sub-section (6) of Section 13 provides that 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 tenant. Under these circumstances, his argument is that Issue No. 1, which relates to the passing of decree on the ground of default, can not be deleted. The issue has to be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit. After hearing counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that sub-section (6) of Section 13 provides that no decree for eviction on the ground of default can be passed by a Court if a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by sub-section (4) of Section 13. Sub-section (4) provides that the tenant shall deposit arrears of rent as determined by the Court under sub section (3) and further that the tenant shall continue to deposit the monthly rent every month by 15th of the net succeeding month. Under these circumstances, at this stage, it can not be said that the tenant has deposited or paid the amount as required by sub section (4)It can be said only at the time of final decision of the suit as to whether the tenant complied with both the condictions laid down in sub section (4) of Section 13 or not. The authority cited by counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the presence case. Consequently, I do not find any force in the revision and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. . ;