LAL, J. - (1.) THE instant civil second appeal has arisen out of a suit filed by respondent-plaintiff Tikam Chand for eviction and arrears of rent. THE suit came to be decreed with costs by the learned Munsiff (East), Ajmer on 8. 4. 1991. THE appeal filed against the said judgment and decree decreeing the suit was dismissed with costs on 7. 10. 1993 by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Ajmer. This has led to the filing of the present civil second appeal.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts are that the plaintiff- respondent rented his house situated at Dhola Bhata Housing Colony, Ajmer to appellant-defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 110/ -. It was averred that the appellant-defendant did not pay the rent since 1. 5. 1980 despite notice. The suit was also filed on the ground that the appellant-defendant had left Ajmer since March, 1981 and was not using the rented premises and that the had denied the title of the landlord. The appellant-defendant denied all averments made in the suit and pleaded that the rent was Rs. 70/- per month. The plaintiff-respondent controverted the averments made in the written statement by filing replica. The trial court framed six issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. After affording opportunity of hearing the both the sides, the suit for eviction and arrears of rent was decreed on the ground of default in payment of rent. Other grounds were not found proved. As indicated above, the appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed affirming the judgment of the learned trial court. The instant second appeal was admitted on 21. 1. 1994 on the following two substantial questions of law. (A) Whether in view of the present facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant can be ordered to be evicted when he has deposited the sum of Rs. 8,118/- on 2. 8. 1991 in pursuance of the order passed by the Appellate Court and entire rent stands deposited in the Court; and (B) Whether the trial court acted in accordance with law by rejecting defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 17. 9. 1990 and the case deserves to be remanded on this ground as well as on ground of determining rate of rent ?' Mr. Arjun Karnani, learned counsel for the appellant-tenant has vehemently criticized the impugned judgments. He has submitted that the appellant-defendant had deposited the entire outstanding rent of Rs. 8,118/- on 2. 8. 1991 pursuant to the order of the first appellate court and, therefore, the appellant- defendant could not be ordered to be evicted from the rented premises. He has further submitted that the first appellate court had not been fair to the appellant-defendant in passing the order dated 17. 9. 1990 in disallowing his application for amendment of the written statement filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. According to him, the trial court as well as the learned First Appellate Court have failed to correctly determine the rate of rent agreed to between the parties. Mr. J. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has equally vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions. While supporting the judgments of the learned first appellate court as well as of the trial court, he has submitted that all him might and erudition that the defence of the appellant-defendant had been struck off on 16. 7. 1990 for non-payment of rent in time and in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nasiruddin and Others vs. Sita Ram Agarwal AIR 2003 SC 1543 = RLW 2003 (2) SC 315), the period fixed for deposit of rent could not be extended under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant-defendant having committed legal default in payment of rent was not entitled to any relief what- so-ever. He has, therefore, prayed that this appeal may be dismissed with exemplary costs because the respondent-plaintiff has been deprived of the use and occupation of the premises let- out to the appellant defendant for such a long period. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar and have gone through the relevant record as well as the case law cited at the bar.
(3.) AS indicated above, the first substantial question of law framed in this case pertains to deposit of rent by the appellant- defendant on 2. 8. 1991 pursuant to the order of the appellate court but obviously this does not and cannot save the legal default committed by the appellant-defendant in payment of rent. Admittedly, the defence against eviction of the defendant- appellant had been struck off on 16. 7. 1990 for his failure to pay to the plaintiff or to deposit rent in the court. After the defence having been struck off for non-payment of rent in time, the deposit of rent in the appellate court is of little avail to the appellant which legal position could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The first substantial legal question thus, is decided against the appellant-defendant. The second substantial question of law pertains to the rejection of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement and even a cursory look at the order dated 17. 9. 1990 rejecting the aforesaid application makes it abundantly clear that there is no infirmity or legal lacunae in the order and the criticism levelled against the said order is without any pith and substance. The order rejecting application for amendment of the written statement is well considered and the application has been rejected for cogent reasons which call for no interference by this court. Learned counsel for the appellant- defendant also could not point out any illegality in the order. This question also is, therefore, decided against the appellant- defendant. In view of the fore-going discussion and the decision on the substantial questions of law framed in this case, this appeal is absolutely devoid of merit and substance and deserves to be dismissed. ;