- (1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and the decree for eviction passed in a rent- ejectment suit on the ground of default. The suit for eviction against the defendant-appellant Shankarlal was field by Shri Vedprakash, the respondent-plaintiff, on or about 6. 7. 1976, inter alia, on the ground that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent for a period of more than 6 months, a she has not paid or tendered rent since 31. 10. 1975; and that rendered him liable to be evicted under sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950' ). The disputed premises is a shop. The rate of rent is alleged to be Rs. 35/- per month. The plaintiff also asked for determination of standard rent, as the shop was let out in December, 1962. It was claimed that the rent rent was at too low a rate. Prayer for fixing Standard Rent under the Act was also made.
(2.) THE trial court by its order dated 2. 2. 1977, determined the amount of rent payable to the landlord-plaintiff under Sec. 13 (3) of the Act of 1950, amounting to Rs. 525/- at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month and interest, amounting to Rs. 18. 40, totalling Rs. 543. 40. THE court ordered that the amount be deposited within 15 days from the date of the order. THE period for depositing the amount Rs. 595/-, as rent upto 31. 03. 1977 and interest Rs. 18. 40, totalling Rs. 613. 40 and, thereafter continued to deposit the rent month by month, until the decision of the suit by the trial court. While deciding the issues No. 1 and 2, the trial court held that the defendant was a defaulter within the meaning of Sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Act. It further held that after determination of rent payable under Sec. 13 (3), upto 31. 01. 1977, as per the order dated 2. 02. 1977; it was obligatory upon the defendant to have deposited alongwith the amount determined under Sec. 13 (3), he has committed default in making payment of monthly rent under Sec. 13 (4)As he has failed to deposit the rent as required by Sec. 13 (4), he is not entitled to protection under Sec. 13 (6)For these reasons, the court also held that even the defence of the defendant is liable to be struck off, though no formal order of striking out defence was made. The finding on the question of default was arrived at after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, including that of the defendant. The trial court determined the standard rent payable for the suit shop at Rs. 75/- per month and passed a decree for arrears of rent in terms thereof also, alongwith decree for ejectment. On appeal, the decree for ejectment and fixation of standard rent was maintained. However, the effective date of standard rent was shifted from the date of filing of the suit, that is, 7. 7. 1976 to 12. 10. 1978. . Hence this Second Appeal. The Court, while admitting the second appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law involved in the appeal: " (1) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Civil Judge was not right in maintaining the decree for ejectment passed by the Munsif, Bikaner after striking out the defence suo moto on the ground that the defendant has no deposited the monthly rent of February, 1977 in time as envisaged by s. 13 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (No. XVII of 1950)?" On 16. 7. 1981, the Court also passed the interim order in the following terms: "the appellant shall not be dispossessed from the premises in dispute until the decision of the appeal provided he pays all the arrears of rent as well as the rent month by month as directed by the Munsif in his judgment dated October 6, 1980. "
(3.) THE defendant-appellant again failed to deposit the monthly rent in time as per order dated 16. 7. 1981. THE plaintiff the upon moved an application for execution of decree for ejectment. THE Executing Court though found in its order dated 4. 2. 1992 that the defendant has not paid or deposited rent in time, in terms of the orders of Court, however, had come to the conclusion that since there was no order by the appellate court for depositing rent in executing court, the decree could not be executed for not depositing the rent in time in the court. THE plaintiff moved this Court on 24. 1. 1992, bringing these facts to the notice of the Court and claiming that as the appellant-defendant has failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the interim order dated 16. 7. 1981, the interim order has automatically come to an end and the executing court be directed to execute the decree. When this application was moved, the appellant moved a Second Stay Application 23. 11. 1992, alleging that the entire rent has been deposited and he could not be dispossessed during the pendency of the appeal. He also claimed that he has deposited or paid entire rent in advance; to which a reply was filed by the respondent plaintiff, giving details of the dates on which the amount has been paid or deposited, bringing out the fact that he has committed default in making payment of rent for October, 1982; May, 1983, September, 1983; July, October a. 11. 1984; February, March a. 09. 1985; August a. 09. 1987; June a. 11. 1988; June to December, 1989; a. 06. 1990 to February, 1991. THE defendant again committed default in making payment of rent in time for the months of June a. 07. 1991. When this application came up for orders, the appeal itself was heard. It may also be noticed that the defendant-appellant, for the first time, moved an application for condonation of delay in payment of rent for the month of February, 1977 on 21. 4. 1981, alongwith the Second Appeal. The defendant-appellant again moved an application for condonation of delay in making delayed payment of February, 1977 on 4. 2. 1993 and another application for condonation of delay in making payment of rent in terms of the order dated 16. 7. 1981 was moved on 23. 2. 1993, after the arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. It was first contended by learned counsel for the appellant that on true interpretation of Sec. 13 (3) and 13 (4), the amount of monthly rent subsequently, to the period upto which the amount of rent payable has been determined under Sec. 13 (3), is to be deposited simultaneously alongwith the amount obligation to pay rent by 15th of each succeeding month arises. The amount of monthly rent upto the date of deposit of rent determined under Sec. 13 (3) cannot constitute as delayed payment, so long as the same amount has been deposited alongwith the amount determined under Sec. 13 (3), which admittedly, in the present case, has been paid within time extended by the Court. ;