- (1.) THIS is a civil second appeal by Suraj Narain, defendant, against the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City of the 23rd February, 1954, confirming on appeal the decree passed by the Munsif, Jaipur West, on the 10th of November, 1953, on which the plaintiff was held entitled to get possession of the suit premises and the defendant was ordered to be ejected therefrom.
(2.) KHAWAS Bala Bux filed a suit against Suraj Narain in the court of the Munsif Jaipur West, on the 21st of October, 1952, on the allegations that the defendant was his tenant, that he had made defaults in payment of rent on three occasions within a period of 18 months and that he was, therefore, liable to be ejected. The plaintiff claimed possession of the suit premises. The defendant denied having made defaults as stated by the plaintiff and pleaded that he had paid rent upto the month of July, 1952. The learned Munsif, after trying the suit, held in favour of the plaintiff that defaults in payment of rent had been made as alleged by the plaintiff and that the defendant had failed to prove payment of rent upto July, 1952 as alleged by him, The suit of the plaintiff was accordingly decreed. The defendant went in appeal to the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City, who dismissed his appeal. He has now come in second appeal and his learned counsel has urged the following points : - (1) That the learned trial court should have complied with the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (No. XVII of 1950), as amended by Act No. IX of 1952, and on the first day fixed for the hearing he should have determined the amount of rent due from the tenant upto the date of the order together with interest thereon on directed the tenant to pay the same within the time specified by the court and the suit of the plaintiff could only proceed on failure on the part of the defendant to make payment of such arrears of rent. (2) That on appeal lay before the Senior Civil Judge in this case and an appeal lay to the Court of the District Judge, under sec. 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, and (3) that the defendant has paid rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff uptil now and that he should not be ejected from the premises. In case a decree is passed against him for ejectment he should be allowed sufficient time to enable him to hire other suitable premises for his residence. The first point is based on the language of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 13 which has been added by sec. of Act No. IX of 1952, and which is as follows: - " (4) In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-sec. (1), if it is not dismissed for either of the reasons stated in the provisos thereto, the court shall, on the first day fixed for the hearing thereof, by order, determine the amount of rent due from the tenant, which is in arrears, up to the date of such order as also the amount of interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum and of the costs of the suit allowable to the landlord and direct the tenant to pay the aggregate of the amounts so specified on or before a date fixed thereby, which shall not be beyond the fifteenth day from, but exclusive of the date thereof. If on or before the date so fixed for payment, the tenant deposits in Court the aggregate of such amounts, the suit shall be dismissed and the sum so deposited shall be paid to the landlord. " The argument advanced by the learned counsel proceeds on the ground that the court had no alternative but to comply with the provisions of sub-sec. (4) in cases where a suit for ejectment is not dismissed under the provisos to sec. 13 sub sec (1) clause (a ). The contention stands on the words appearing in sub-sec. (4) that "if it is not dismissed for either of the reasons stated in the provisos thereto, the Court shall on the first day fixed for the hearing thereof order determine the amount of rent due from the tenant etc. " It maybe pointed out that the second proviso to sec. 13 sub sec. (1) clause (a) provides that "the tenant shall not be entitled to the benefit of protection against eviction under clause (a) if he has made a like default in payment of rent on three occasions within a period of eighteen months. " Where like defaults in payment of rent on three occasions within eighteen months are made a tenant is not entitled to any protection under sec. 13 (l) (a ). The present case falls within the scope of the second proviso as has been held by both the courts below. There was no scope for application of sub-sec. (4) to the case of the defendant because when he was not entitled to any protection there could have been no occasion for calling the aid of sub-sec. (4) in his favour. The language of sub-sec. (4) is not very happy but it cannot be read in such a way as to nullify the existence of the second proviso to sec. 13 (1) (a ). The two provisions of sec. 13 should be read in such a way as to reconcile with each other. The courts below were, therefore, right in holding that there was no occasion for compliance with the provisions of sub-sec. (4) in the present case when it fell within the scope of second proviso to sec. 13 (1) (a ). Coming to the second point it may be observed that the learned counsel of the appellant failed to show how this suit was one under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. It is true that certain protection has been given to the tenants under sec. 13 of the said Act but it does not mean that the suit of eviction should be regarded as a suit under the provision of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. Certain suits have been provided by this Law for fixation of stamdard rents etc. and it is in respect of those suits that the provisions of sec. 22 (1) of the Act would apply. The suit for ejectment is a suit under the ordinary law and an appeal lay from the decree of the court of Munsif to the court of the Civil Judge. The argument of the learned counsel of the appellant, which is based on the provisions of sec. 22 cannot help him in any way. As regards the third point Mr. Sanghi has urged that the appellant has already remained in possession of the premises for more than 2 years on account of the present litigation and he should not now be allowed further time. The contention of Mr. Sanghi is not without force. The appellant cannot now claim further time for evicting the premises. This appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs. . ;