- (1.) THIS is a landlord's revision petition against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Gangapur City dated January 29, 1983 by which he allowed the tenants' appeal and set aside the order of the learned Munsif, Karaali dated August 4, 1981 striking out their defence against eviction.
(2.) THE plaintiff landlord brought a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the tenants in respect of the suit premises in the court of Munsif, Karauli. One of the grounds made to seek the eviction was that the tenants had neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from them for more than six months. THEy, therefore, committed the default in payment of rent under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). THE suit was resisted by the tenants. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif provisionally determined the amount of rent in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. THE arrears of rent so determined were for the period from August 18, 1979 to May 17, 1981 i. e. 21 months. This amount was deposited by the tenants on July 23, 1981 i. e. within three months. However, they filed to deposit the monthly-rent accruing due from May 18, 1981 within 15 days. THEy deposited the rent for this month also on July 23, 1981 alongwith the amount of rent provisionally determined, THE landlord approached the taial court with the request that the tenants' defence against eviction be struck out. After hearing both the parties, the learned Munsif struck out the defence of the tenants against eviction. He held that the tenants had failed to deposit the monthly rent of the period from May 18, 1979 to June 17, 1931 within 15 days. THE tenants challenged this order in appeal. THE learned Additional District Judge sitting in appeal, reversed the order of the learned Munsif by his impugned judgment dated January 29, 1983. Aggrieved against it, the plaintiff has come up in revision to this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of both the courts below. It was argued by the learned counsel for the landlord that the whole approach of the Additional District Judge was erroneous and unextainable in law. Admittedly, the tenants had not deposited the monthly rent by the 15th day of the succeeding month. Their defence against eviction was, therefore, liable to be struck out. No concession could be granted to the tenants. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court viz. Hem Chandra vs. Kamok Ram (1) and Suraj Narain vs. Laxmi Devi (2 ). In reply, straneous efforts were made to support the impugned order of the lower appellate court. I have taken the respective contentions into consideration. Admittedly, the provisional rent was determined by the trial Court on May 21, 1981. It included the period from August 18, 1979 to May 17, 1981. The tenants were required to pay monthly rent thereafter month by month by the 15th day of each succeeding month or within such further time not exceeding 15 days, as may be extended by the court under Section 13 (4) of the Act. The monthly rent for the period from May 18, 1981 to June 17, 1981 was deposited on July 23, 1981, though the tender to deposit it was presented on July 18, 1981. However, the fact remains that it was deposited on the expiry of 15th days and thereafter also on the expiry of another 15 days. The tenants' defence against eviction was, therefore, liable to be struck out under sub-section (3) of the Act. It was argued on behalf of the tenants that the month of tenancy, according to the agreement between the parties, commenced on 5th of every Gregorian Calander. As such the provisional rent ought to have been determined only upto the period ending on May 4, 1981. It was wrongly determined for the period upto May 17, 1981. May that it be, the order of determining the provisional rent dated May 21, 1981 has attained the finality. If the tenants had any grievance against it, they should have challened it in the higher court. But it was not challenged. Since, it has become final, its legality can not be examined now.
(3.) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, no rent was paid for the period subsequent to May 18,1981. If the monthly tenancy commences on 5th of every English month, the tenants were required to deposit the rent for the period from May 5, 1981 to June 4, 1981 within 15 days of the succeeding month, that is to say by 19th of June, 1981 after deducting the amount, if any deposited by them. But the tenants failed to do so. They have, thus, also committed the default in depositing the monthly rent within 15 days of the succeeding months. The learned Munsif examined the case from all these angles and rightly held that the tenants had committed the default in depositing the monthly rent as envisaged in sub-section (4 ). A perusal of the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge shows that he failed to consider the various facts of the problem put before him. In para 9 of his order, the learned Additional District Judge himself held that the tenants had committed the default in depositing the monthly rent. It would be proper to quote him in his own words :- Bu ifjflfkfr;ksa esa esjh jk; es izfrokfn dk fmqsul LVkbd vkmv djuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugh gksrk gs gkykafd mlus 17&5&81 rd ds ',d ekg dk fdjk;k 23 fnol ds foyec ls tek djok;k gs----blfy;s ek= ,d ekg dk fdjk;k foyec ls tek djkus ds dkj. k mldh fmqsul jvkbd vkmv djuk mfpr ugh gsa ;