Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) The present second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC has been filed by the defendant -tenant -Rampal s/o. Late Shri Jankilal Bhandari in this Court on 09.10.2000, aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree dated 17.04.1989 passed by the learned trial court of Additional Munsif Magistrate, First Class No. 1, Bhilwara in Regular Civil Case No. 36/81 - Shri Ramchandra Vs. Shri Rampal and grant of the eviction decree by the learned appellate court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara by the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2000 passed in Civil Appeal No. 49/90 - LRs. of Ramchandra Vs. Rampal.
(2.) A suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff -landlord before the learned trial court, in respect of the suit shop in question, on the ground of default in payment of rent under Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'), which was rejected by the learned trial court on 17.04.1989 with the following findings recorded in favour of the defendant -tenant and against the plaintiff -landlord: - JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_2016.jpg "Any failure to pay the provisional rent for any month by the fifteenth day of the next following month shall render the tenant liable to eviction under clause (a) of sub -section (1) of section,......... JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_20160.jpg JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_20161.jpg The eviction of a tenant could be ordered only when one of the conditions laid down in Sec. 13 of the Act is satisfied. Sec. (4) of the Act states that failure to pay provisional rent for any month by the fifteenth day of the next following month shall render the tenant liable to eviction under Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Act. While sec. 13(1)(a) says that the tenant shall be liable to ejectment if he has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months. The amended provisions came into force on 9.6.1965. The plaintiff's suit was instituted on 18.9.65. Thus, the present suit brought by the plaintiff would be governed by the amended provisions of sec. 13(1)(a) of the Act. To satisfy the condition of sec. 13(1)(a), there must be a default of six months rent. The plaintiff appellants contention that even a default of single month in the payment of provisional rent under sec. 7(4) of the Act should render a tenant liable to ejectment cannot be accepted. Sec. 7(4) envisages a default, and this default shall be counted for the purpose of sec. 13(1)(a) of the Act. To constitute a default rendering the tenant liable for ejectment it must be a default for payment of the rent for six months. This sec. 7(4) of the said Act override the provisions of sec. 13(1)(a) of the Act. JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_20162.jpg
(3.) The learned appellate court however, allowed the appeal of the plaintiff -landlord on 09.08.2000 with the following findings and observations in favour of the plaintiff -landlord and against the defendant -tenant: - JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_20163.jpg JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_20164.jpg JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_20165.jpg JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_20166.jpg JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_20167.jpg JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_20168.jpg JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_20169.jpg JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_201610.jpg JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(RAJ)2_201611.jpg;