K.S.LODHA,J. - (1.) THESE two appeals arises out of the single judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Churu dated 7.1.84, by which the decree of the Munsif, Churu, dated 23.7.80 has been reversed and the matter has been remanded to the trial Court. These appeals are, therefore, being disposed of by single order.
(2.) THE respondent Gani had taken on contract a shop situated at Churu on rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month from Shri Rameshwarlal, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs-appellants and proforma respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with effect from 20.4.71 under a rent note of the same date. Later, Rameshwarlal died and the plaintiffs-appellants and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 became the landlords. The plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant for ejectment on the grounds of default, having materially altered the premises and for using it for purpose other than the one for which it was let out. This suit was filed on 8.1.75 before the Munsif, Churu. The first date fixed in the suit was 13.2.75. On that day the defendants-tenant moved an application that the rent from 1.12.72 to 31.3.75 at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month was due and that he was ready to deposit that amount totalling Rs. 420/- and the Court directed that the amount may be deposited in accordance with law. A sum of Rs. 420/- was thereupon deposited by the defendant on 14.2.1975. As according to the plaintiffs the defendant was already a defaulter and did not deposit the rent in accordance with Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) nor did he further deposit the rent month by month, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 13(5) of the Act on 16.5.77, praying that the defence of the defendant may be struck off. After hearing the arguments of the parties the defence against the eviction was struck off by order dated 31.10.77. The matter then proceeded further. The issues were framed on 16.3.78 and were later amended on 21.12.79. After taking evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments the learned Munsif decreed the suit for ejectment as well as for arrears of rent in para i.e. at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month only, by its judgment and decree dated 23.7.80. Aggrieved of this both the parties filed appeals before the learned District Judge. The plaintiff wanted the decree for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month, whereas the defendant challenged the decree for ejectment. The appeals came to be heard by the learned Civil Judge, Churu, who by a single judgment dated 7.1.84 accepted the defendant's appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court holding that the defendant had raised a dispute about the rate of rent and, therefore, under the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act, as it then stood, the Court was bound to determine the amount payable by the tenant on account of arrears of rent and interest but the Court failed to determine the same and also wrongly struck off the defence of the defendant against the ejectment even in the absence of the determination under Section 13(4) of the Act. He, therefore, directed that Court should proceed to decide the application of the defendant dated 13.2.75 disputing the amount of rent and thereafter, should proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law. The order striking off the defence was also set aside. He further directed that the parties should also be given an opportunity to produce evidence on the amended issue No. 2(B) and then this issue should also be decided in accordance with law. The learned Civil Judge, however, dismissed, the plaintiffs' appeal. Aggrieved of this dismissal of their appeal and acceptance of the defendants' appeal, the plaintiffs' have filed these two appeals before this Court.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.;