- (1.) THIS is plaintiffs revision directed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner dated 21. 9. 1991 whereby he has set aside the order of the learned Munsif, Bikaner dated 9. 2. 1990 striking out the defence.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that petitioner- plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of rent for three years and also sought ejectment on the grounds of defaults necessity and material alteration on 17. 5. 1985. The defendant contested the suit. Rent was determined on 31. 7. 1987 at the rate of Rs. 60/-per month and the defendant was ordered to deposit Rs. 3300/- within a month and further directed the defendant to pay rent month by month by the fifteenth of each succeeding month. It is alleged that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent on several occasion, so an application under Sec. 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was filed on 5. 7. 1989. Reply was filed on 14. 9. 1989 stating that he is not defaulter. Vide order dated 9. 2. 1990 the learned Additional Munsif No. l, Bikaner ordered to strike out the defence. Aggrieved defendant-non-petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner. The appeal so preferred was accepted by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner vide judgment dated 21. 9. 1991. Hence, this revision. This revision is pending since 31. 12. 1991. It has come up before me and as agreed by the counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. Mr. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional Civil Judge has erred in reversing the order of the trial court as the defendant was defaulter in payment of rent. Mr. Purohit learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional Civil Judge after considering the fact that the due rent has already been deposited has rightly exercised the discretion in favour of the defendant condoning the delay. He has relied on Ramlal & Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1) and Miss Santosh Mehta Vs. Om Prakash Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the relevant provisions of law.
(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY a landlord is entitled to get rent after the determination of rent and thereafter monthly rent in time in view of sub-Sections (3), (4) and (5) of the Section 13 of the Act and in case tenant makes any default or any breach in the condition of monthly rent then certainly landlord get a right of striking out the defence of the tenant. In the instant case, the tenant is a habitual defaulter and he has not deposited monthly rent as and when became due. He has deposited monthly rent with a gap of 2 months, 3 months and even six months, which has not been disputed. This goes to show that this is a case where the tenant has deposited rent with the delay not only once or twice, but he has deposited monthly rent very irregularly. No doubt The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is a beneficial legislation, but at the same time its provision must be complied with as intended by the legislature by using certain words which are clear and in unambiguous terms. The Appellate Court has noted at page 6 of its judgement that the tenant has deposited the rent of June, 1988 to November,1988 in the month of December,1988. It was the appellant's duty to satisfy the court that he has deposited monthly rent in time as ordered by the court below. Furthermore, the delay in depositing the rent has also not been explained. The order of the trial court has been reversed without there being an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In Manju Choudhary vs. Daulal Kumar Chandra (3), their lordships of the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 13 of the Bihar (Building) Rent and Eviction) Ordinance, 1982 which is similar to Section 13 (5) of the Act, has held that there is a duty cast on the court to strike out the defence if there is a failure of the tenant to deposit monthly rent within 15 days. In that case there was a delay of only five days but still the defence of the defendant was struck out, and maintained the orders of the courts below. ;