R.S.KEJRIWAL,J. - (1.) THE plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner on several grounds inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner committed default in the payment of rent. Notice of suit was served on the petitioner. He put his appearance on 17.12.1994. On his request the case was adjourned to 7.3.1995. On 7.3.1995, the petitioner filed an application mentioning therein that he has already deposited rent upto December, 1994, under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the 'Act'). He wants to deposit the rent for the months of January & February, 1995. He may be permitted to deposit the rent in the Court.
(2.) THE trial court vide its order dated 7.5.1993, rejected the said application of the defendant-petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. The learned Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his order dated 24.4.1995, rejected the said appeal. Under such circumstances the petitioner has filed the present revision, challenging the aforesaid orders. The case was listed on 4.9.1995. This court framed the following two questions and directed the office to publish these two questions in the daily cause list so that the members of the Bar, who want to address the Court, may make their submissions :- Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Order 24 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, a defendant-tenant has right to deposit the amount claimed by the plaintiff in his suit in the Court. In the present case the plaintiffs-non-petitioners have prayed that a decree of rent from the date of suit till the date of decree be passed against the petitioner. In such circumstances the trial Court had no jurisdiction to reject the prayer of the petitioner to deposit the rent claimed by the plaintiffs-non-petitioners in the suit. He further submits that the lower appellate court further erred in holding that the rent can be determined under Section 13(3) of the Act without filing a written statement. He submits that under Section 13(3) of the Act, rent can be determined only after filing the written statement and not prior to that. He further submits that the lower courts did not consider these aspects of the case and rejected the application in arbitrary way and in case the orders of the lower courts are allowed to stand, they would cause irreparable injury to the defendant-petitioner. He prayed that the orders passed by the lower courts be set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed.
(3.) MR . M.M. Ranjan and Mr. R.K. Agarwal interveners also supported the counsel for the petitioner. But their submission is that notice of deposit must go to the plaintiffs-non-petitioners, otherwise the plaintiffs-non-petitioners will suffer interest on the amount deposited by the defendant-petitioner.;