B.R.ARORA,J. - (1.) HON 'ble Single Judge (Shri A.K. Mathur) referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Larger Bench - "In the event of failure to deposit the rent, whether the whole defence under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 will be struck out or the defence to the extent of Section 13(1)(a) ?"
(2.) THE learned Single Judge referred the question for the opinion of the Larger Bench to set at rest the controversy because there was a difference of opinion on the point. Large number of judgments of this Court have subscribed the view that if the defence has been struck out under Section 13(5) or the defence under the Act, the whole defence under the Act is struck out but Hon'ble Shri G.M. Lodha (as he then was) has taken a different view. The same controversy came up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Ramesh Chand Pandey and Anr. v. Babu Lal and Ors., 1995(1) RLW 132. The question referred in that case was "Whether the order passed under Section 13(5) striking out the defence of a tenant against eviction would apply to all grounds of eviction specified in Section 13(1)(a) to (2) and other laws or such striking out is limited to the defence against eviction on the grounds specified in Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 ?" The Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble the Chief Justice Shri A.P. Ravani and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, while deciding the controversy, answered this question as under - "The order passed under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act striking out the defence against eviction, would apply only to the grounds of eviction specified in Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Act."
(3.) IN view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Ramesh Chand Pandey's case (supra), the question referred in the present case, therefore, stands answered and adopting the same reasons we answer the question in the manner that in the even of failure to deposit the rent the whole defence under Section 13(5) of the Act will not be struck out but the order will apply only to the grounds or defence to the extent specified in Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, 1950.;