GOYAL, J. - (1.) THE defendant-tenant Ramesh Chand has preferred this appeal against the concurrent judgment and decree of eviction.
(2.) FACTS in brief giving rise to this second appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction on 18. 2. 1991 with the averments that Sh. Gangaram (since deceased) is the tenant in suit shop on monthly rent of Rs. 20/- from 24. 5. 1958. Eviction was sought on grounds of default in payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff, closure of the shop by the tenant for more than a year, substantial damage to the suit shop, unauthorized possession of Sh. Ramesh Chand and sub-letting to the defendant No. 2 Sh. Tara Chand. Vide written statement while admitting the tenancy all the grounds of eviction were denied. As many as 11 issues were framed. After recording the evidence of the parties the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Alwar passed the decree of eviction only on the ground of default in payment of rent. The defendant Ramesh Chand as well as the plaintiff-landlord both filed first appeals and both the appeals were dismissed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar vide impugned judgment dated 6. 12. 2003. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. As per Section 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act) in case the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months a decree of eviction shall be passed in favour of the landlord.
(3.) THE Trial Court vide order dated 2. 5. 1998 determined the arrears of rent provisionally as provided under Section 13 (3) of the Act and directed the tenant to pay the monthly rent subsequent to the date of the determination also. THEreafter, on application of the plaintiff-landlord the Trial Court vide order dated 1. 4. 2000 passed an order stricking out the defence against eviction under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 34/2002 preferred by the tenant against this order was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar on 5. 9. 2002. In view of these facts, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the defence against eviction was struck out, the plaintiff was bound to prove the statutory default under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act. According to learned counsel for the appellant the plaintiff had already filed a suit for fixation of standard rent under Section 6 of the Act and the Trial Court determined the provisional standard rent under Section 7 of the Act on 1. 5. 1991 @ Rs. 50/- per month and the defendant-tenant deposited the entire arrears of rent at this rate from January, 1990 to May, 1991 on 26. 5. 1991 and thus there was no default in payment of rent. It was also contended that as per Section 7 (3) of the Act the proceedings of the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent should have been stayed by the Trial Court upon the payment by the tenant in the court of the total amount due to the landlord on the basis of such provisional rent. On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent it was contended that both the courts below have arrived at this conclusion that the defendant-tenant committed default in payment of rent and this is concurrent finding of fact and there is no perversity in the same and no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal and the instant case was for eviction and there was no question of staying the proceedings in view of the earlier suit filed for fixation of standard rent. ;