- (1.) The present second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC by the appellants-defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31/8/2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Beawar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Regular First Appeal No.22 of 2012(26/02), whereby the Appellate Court has allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 20/4/2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Beawar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Suit No.234 of 1977.
(2.) The facts in net-shell giving rise to the present appeal are that the original plaintiff Rameshwari Devi widow of Banshidhar, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents had filed the suit against the original defendant Ram Lal S/o. Sukhchand, the predecessor-in-title of the appellants, seeking eviction in respect of the suit shop on the ground of committing default in the payment of rent, and on the ground of nuisance, on 21/9/1977. It was alleged in the plaint inter-alia that the suit shop was let out to the defendant on the monthly rent of Rs.18/- plus house tax. The defendant had paid the rent upto Bhadva Sudi 15th of 2032 as per the Hindu Calendar and the rent was due since Asaj Badi 1st of 2032. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had committed default by not making the payment of rent for more than six months. It was also alleged that the defendant tenant was creating nuisance by consuming alcohol, and therefore, the suit for eviction was filed. The said suit was resisted by the original defendant by filing the written-statement on 14/2/1978 denying the allegations made in the plaint, and further contending inter-alia that though the defendant had tried to pay the rent through money order, the plaintiff had refused to accept the same.
(3.) It appears that the Trial Court determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950(hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), on 21/3/1978. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application on 15/11/1983 for striking out the defence of the defendant under Section 13(5) of the said Act on the ground that the defendant had not paid the rent for the month of July, 1980, due on 11/8/1980 within the specified time limit. The defendant thereafter filed an application on 5/7/1984 seeking condonation of delay of nine days on the ground that the defendant had deposited the rent on 20/8/1980 instead of 11/8/1980. The Trial Court dismissed the said application of the plaintiff filed under Section 13(5) of the said Act, and allowed the application of the defendant for the condonation of delay, vide the order dated 17/8/1984. The plaintiff thereafter again filed an application on 8/10/1998 for striking out the defence of the defendant under Section 13(5) of the said Act on the ground that the defendant had not paid the rent for the month of September, 1993, due on 15/10/1993 within the specified time limit. The defendant filed the reply on 1/9/1999 to the said application and also filed an application on 28/2/2002 seeking condonation of delay of 12 days for the month of September, 1993. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing the reply on 14/3/2002. The Trial Court allowed the said application of the defendant vide the order dated 18/3/2002, and then dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide the judgment and decree dated 20th April, 2002, granting the defendant benefit under the provisions contained in Section 13(6) of the said Act. Since during the pendency of the suit, the original-plaintiff and original defendant had expired, their respective legal representatives were brought on record. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 had preferred an appeal being F.A. No.22/12(26/02) before the Appellate Court against the present appellants, showing the present respondent Nos.6 to 12 as the respondents in the cause title of the appeal memo. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Appellate Court by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20/4/2002 passed by the Trial Court and directing the appellants-defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the appellants-plaintiffs within two months of the said order. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants.;