BERI, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, dated April 30, 1973 in a case relating to eviction of a tenant instituted under Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 ( hereinafter called 'the Act' ).
(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy its background may be recalled. There is a shop bearing No. 47 situate in Dhanmandi Market, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Its original owner was Sohandas but for my purposes on account of its transfer by sale Manohar Das is the landlord. The tenant Anandilal had taken this shop on rent at Rs 100/- per month. He instituted a suit on March 30, 1971, for fixation of its standard rent under sec. 6 of the Act and it was followed by another application dated June 4, 1971 for the determination of provisional rent and the court had fixed it at Rs. 60/- per month on the same date. The tenant deposited and continues to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 60/- in the Court where proceedings for fixation of standard rent are pending. The landlord instituted a suit for tenant's eviction on November 16, 1971, on the ground of the landlord's personal bona fide and reasonable necessity and also on account of the default in the payment of rent. When the suit for eviction came up on January 4, 1972, before the Additional Munsif, Jaipur West, which for all practical purposes was the first day of hearing, the tenant complained that he had no copy of the plaint and added that if it was a suit for eviction on account of default it must be recorded that the tenant was regularly paying Rs. 60 per month as provisional rent in the proceedings relating to the fixation of standard rent. The learned Munsif passed no specific order on this application. The landlord, however, moved an application on January 27, 1973 under sec. 13 (6) of the Act praying that the defence of the tenant be struck off because he had not complied with the provisions of sec. 13 (4) of the Act. The learned Munsif, by his order dated February 13, 1973, ordered the defence of the tenant to be struck off. Dissatisfied, the tenant preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge No 1 accepted the tenant's contention that he was not liable to deposit rent under sec. 13 (4) because he was already depositing rent under sec. 7 of the Act. It is the landlord now who is dissatisfied and he is, therefore, before me. Mr. P. C. Bhandari urged that sec. 7 was independent of sec. 8 of the Act and so also sec. 13 (4 ). On the authority of Chhotelal Narsingdas Malpani vs. Lalta Prashad Mamenchand (l) he urged that notwithstanding the fact that it works hardship on the tenant to deposit rent at two places the requirement of law had to be obeyed as observed by the Division Bench of Madhya Bharat High Court. As the matter in controversy before me is of frequent occurrence, Mr. P. N. Datta and Mr. Kewal Chand rendered valuable assistance to me at the time of admission. A broad examination of the scheme of the Act to the extent it is relevant for the purposes of deciding this matter will be useful. Sec. 6 provides that "where no rent has been agreed upon or where for any reason the rent agreed upon is claimed to be excessive, the landlord or the tenant may institute a suit in the lowest court of competent jurisdiction for fixation of standard rent for any premises. " Entire procedure is laid down in the section which is of the nature of a summary inquiry and the considerations on which the rent is to be fixed are also indicated in the section. Sec. 7 of the Act reads - (1) Upon the institution of a suit under sec. 6, the Court shall forthwith make an order fixing in a summary manner a provisional rent for the premises in question, which shall be binding on all parlies concerned and shall remain in force till a decree fixing the standard rent therefor is finally made in such suits. (3) A suit for the recovery of arrears of rent to which the provisional rent fixed under this section is applicable shall be stayed by the Court upon the payment by the tenant in Court of the total amount due to the landlord on the basis of such provisional rent. Sec. 8 of the Act provides that no tenant shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, be liable to pay to his landlord for occupation of any premises any sum in excess of the standard rent therefor decreed by the Court, unless such sum could lawfully be added to the standard rent in accordance with the provisions of this Act under a decree or otherwise. Any agreement for the payment of rent as such in excess of the standard rent shall be null and void and shall be construed as if it were an agreement for payment of the standard rent only. Sec. 9 provides for the prohibition of charges of additional amount and sec. 10 envisages the circumstances under which the standard rent is liable to increase. Sec. 11 provides for the procedure for increase in rent in certain cases. Sec. 12 does not concern us and sec. 13 is the principal section regarding eviction of a tenant in which sub-secs. (4), (5) and (6) are relevant for my purposes at the moment and they read as under: "sec. 13 (4) - In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-sec. (1), with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section, the tenant shall, on the first day of hearing or on or before such date as the court may, on an application made to it, fix in this behalf, or within such time, not exceeding two months as may be extended by the court, deposit in court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the and of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made. (5) If in any suit referred to in sub-sec. (4), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the court shall determine, having regard to the provisions of this Act, the amount to be deposited or paid to the landlord by the tenant, within fifteen days from the date of such order, in accordance with the provisions of sec. (4 ). (6) If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub sec. (4) or sub-sec. (5), on the date or within the time specified therein, the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. " The legislative measures for the control of rent and eviction, such as the Act before me, and the similar laws which are in force in other parts of the country are historically speaking the legacy of the second world war. The two outstanding prin-ciples which they emphasise are - (1) that the landlord shall receive what is considered, having regard to certain norms prescribed in the Act, the ideal rent or fair rent of the premises which he lets out to tenant and the tenant will be saved from the threat of displacement and eviction if he continues to pay the rent excepting in certain exceptional grounds provided by sec. 13. (2) A defaulting tenant is not encouraged by the Act because his defence is liable to be struck off under sec. 13 (6) if he does not deposit the rent under sec. 13 (4 ).
(3.) BUT, a situation can arise where the quantum of rent itself may be a matter of dispute such as the one before me, and where the tenant has already resorted to the provisions of sec. 6 and 7 for the fixation of the standard rent. The Legislature has taken good care to provide that during the pendency of the dispute the Court shall fix what the name clearly suggests "provisional rent" which is in the nature of an ad hoc assessment by the court for fixing the liability of a tenant who disputes the fairness of the rent agreed upon. The question that calls for consideration is that in a case where the tenant punctually and faithfully keeps on depositing the provisional rent fixed under sec. 7, has he to deposit rent also under sec. 13 (4) in a suit for eviction? The answer, in my opinion, is plainly in the negative. My reasons are, firstly, sec. 7 inter alia provides that the provisional rent fixed under sec. 7 (1) "shall be binding on all parties concerned and shall remain in force till a decree fixing the standard rent therefor is finally made in such suits. " The parties obviously are the landlord and the tenant but when the legislature says that it shall remain in force till the decree fixing the standard rent therefor is finally made in such suits, it clearly commands that that alone shall be the rent which the laws hall recognise payable by the tenant to a landlord pending final disposal of the application for fixation of standard rent. Sub-sec. (3) gives another clue to the intention. It lays down that if there is a suit for recovery of arrears of rent to which the provisional rent fixed under the section is applicable such a suit shall be stayed. The reason is easy to imagine. The legislature in order to avoid a possible conflict of decisions has directed that the proceedings for the recovery of the arrears of rent shall not proceed until it is determined by the court as to what was the standard rent payable by the tenant. Sub-sec. (4) gives the order for the fixation of provisional rent the status of a decree and any failure to pay the provisional rent by a tenant within the time indicated in sub sec. (4) renders the tenant liable to eviction under sec. 13 (1) (a) as a defaulter. If the non-payment of provisional rent visits the tenant with the liability of a defaulter and consequent eviction under sec. 13 (1) (a) there is no reason either in equity or good conscience, to say that the converse of it is also not true. In other words, if the tenant faithfully pays the provisional rent, then he is not a defaulter within the meaning of sec. 13 (1) (a) and, therefore, not liable to ejectment for that reason If sec. 7 (4) is so related to sec. 13 (1) (a) then the provisions of sec. 13 (4) could be no stranger either. What sec. 13 (4) insists is that during the investigation of the dispute regarding the eviction of a tenant he shall not enjoy a holiday from the payment of rent. BUT then again the rent envisaged by sec. 13 (4) could not be any different from the rent provisionally fixed for the time being and finally fixed under sec. 7 of the Act. The language of sec 8 of the Act is so emphatic that it virtually prohibits a tenant from paying any rent other than the standard rent and during the interregnum when the standard rent fixation is under investigation it is the provisional rent. To expect a tenant to pay rent which is provisional rent statutorily fixed and which has the status of a decree, twice over or ask him to pay the agreed rent in addition to the provisional rent will be extremely oppressive against a tenant and further it will render sec. 6, 7 and 3 of the Act nugatory. A designing landlord could exercise his tyranny against a helpless tenant a situation which the legislature could not have countenanced. With these observations, in my opinion, the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, calls for no interference. This revision application fails and is dismissed in limine. .;