B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated January 4, 1992, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner, by which the learned Munsif dismissed the application filed by the decree -holder and refused to get the decree executed.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Ved Prakash filed a suit for eviction against the defendant Shanker Lal in the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and against the decree and judgment, passed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant preferred a second appeal before this Court and that appeal was admitted and on the stay application, the order was passed on July 16, 1981, to the following effect: The appellant shall not be dispossessed from the premises in dispute until the decision sf the appeal, provided he pays all the arrears of rent as well as the rent month by month as directed by the learned Munsif in his judgment dated October 6, 1980. The defendant -appellant did not deposit the amount of monthly rent in time and committed default in the payment of monthly rent for the period of June, 1991. The plaintiff decree -holder, therefore, moved an application on August 3, 1991, before the Executing Court that as the defendant has not deposite the amount of rent as directed by the High Court and, therefore, the stay order, passed by the High Court, automatically comes to an end as it was a conditional order and, therefore, the decree may be got executed. The learned Executing Court, though held that the defendant has not deposited the monthly rent in time and has, also, not deposited the amount of monthly rent for the month of June, 1991, but he cannot order for the execution as the order passed by the High Court does not envisage such contingency. It is against this order dated January 4, 1992, that the present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff -petitioner. I have perused the order, passed by the learned lower Court as well as the order dated July 16, 1981, passed by this Court in the second appeal. This Court, on July 16, 1981, granted the stay that the appellant -defendant may not be dispossessed from the suit premises provided he pays all the arrears of rent as well as the rent month by month as directed by the learned Munsif vide his judgment dated October 6, 1980. The words as directed by the Munsif relate only to the amount of rent determined by him and not beyond that. If the amount of Rs. 75/ - per month, that has been determined by the learned Munsif, Is not paid by the defendant then he will not be entitled for any protection of this Court regarding dispossession from the suit premises. It is only on the payment of the arrears of rent and on the payment of the monthly rent month by month that the defendant -appellant was allowed to remain in possession of the suit premises. If he fails to comply with the obligations imposed by the court and commits a default in the payment of the rent then the defendant loses his right to remain in possession over the suit premises in pursuance of the stay order of this Court passed on July 16, 1981; and is liable to be evicted from the suit premises. The learned lower court was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff -petitioner and refusing to proceed with the executing proceedings when he specifically came to the conclusion that the defendant -appellant has committed a default in making payment of the monthly rent.
(3.) IN the result, the revision petition, filed by the petitioner -plaintiff is allowed and the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner, is directed to proceed with the execution proceedings as the defendant -appellant has committed the default in making payment of the monthly rent.;