MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the above named petitioner-defendants (tenants in the suit) against the Order dated 6. 11. 1995, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 4, (Junior Division), Jaipur City, Jaipur in Case No. 5/87, whereby the application of the non-petitioner plaintiff for amendment of the suit u/o. 6 R. 17 CPC was allowed by the trial Court vide its impugned order referred to above. Briefly stated that Jai Kumar, non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for rent and ejectment under Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the petitioners, M/s. Nanag Ram & Company & Anr. and Nanag Ram, Bhola Nath, Suresh Kumar & Hari Narain are the proforma defendants. The plaintiff sought ejectment of the petitioner- tenant on the following grounds : (A) That the disputed shop premises is required reasonably and bonafidely by the plaintiff for his business. (B) That the defendants-tenants have committed second default in payment of rent for the period 1. 3. 76 to 31. 12. 77 i. e. for 22 months. It was alleged that in the earlier suit No. 158/71, the tenant has availed the benefit of payment of arrears of rent u/s. 13 (A) of the Act. (C) The tenant has caused substantial damages to the property.
(2.) IN their written statement, the petitioners denied the averments of the plaintiff by contending inter alia that since the tenants had been continuously depo- siting the rent in the first suit No. 158/71, which is still pending in accordance with the order of the trial Court and since the entire rent for the disputed period stood deposited in accordance with law and hence nothing remained due to be paid towards rent and hence the petitioners could not be termed as defaulters. Para 6 of the written statement reads as under : *** (D) That on 7. 11. 1978, the petitioners-tenants submitted an application in the second suit i. e. the present suit whereby they requested the trial Court for determination of the provisional rent u/s. 13 (3) of the Act with a further prayer that, that amount already deposited by them in the earlier suit No. 158/71 be permitted to be adjusted in the present suit and if any amount is still found due, the same may be determined and the defendants were willing to deposit the same. The petitioners sought a specific direction from the trial Court as to in what manner and in which suit, future rent was to be deposited. The learned trial Court rejected the application of the petitioners vide its order dated 18. 1. 1984 on the ground that they were not entitled to get any order u/s. 13 (3) of the Act in the second suit. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Addl. Civil Judge against the Order dated 15. 10. 1994 of the trial Court, which too was dismissed. The petitioners thereafter preferred a revision petition before this Court vide S. B. C. R. No. 165/85, which came to be decided by this Court on 8. 7. 1985. The learned Single Judge of this Court while observing that the petitioners were not obliged to deposit the rent u/s. 19 (A) of the Act and if they have been continuously depositing the rent within time in the earlier suit No. 158/71, there was no question of second default and the present suit was not maintainable on this ground. The contention of the plaintiffs-respondents before this Court was that since the petitioners had thus submitted an application u/s. 13 (A) of the Act and since they have taken advantage of the said provisions in the earlier suit vide order dated 20. 4. 1976 on the question of first default, the petitioners were bound to deposit the rent thereafter u/s. 19 (A) of the Act or pay the same to the plaintiff and any deposit ma- de by them in the earlier suit cannot be considered as a valid deposit and in this view of the matter, the plaintiff was within his rights in filing the second suit for eviction on the ground of second default. The question, which had arisen for determination of this Court in the earlier revision petition, was as to whether in these facts and circumstances of the case, the defendants were bound to deposit the rent only u/s. 19 (A) of the Act and whether any deposit made by them in the previous suit, though within time, can be considered or not as a valid deposit so far as not to make them a defaulter in the payment of rent in the second suit. The defendants had earlier filed an application u/s. 13 (3) of the Act for determination of the provisional rent and the same had been rejected by both the Courts below. This Court while disposing of the earlier revision petition had directed that determination of question regarding the maintainability of the second suit on the question of default was not required to be gone into by this Court as the decision of the application, filed u/s. 13 (3) of the Act on merits either way may affect the rights of both the parties. In view of these circumstances, this Court held that the Courts below should not have rejected the application of the petitioners-defendants u/s. 13 (3) of the Act. The revision petition was disposed of with the direction that : (i) The plaintiff would be entitled to withdraw the rent deposited by the tenant-defendants in the earlier suit No. 158/71 upto the month of June, 1985. Now onwards from July, 1985, the tenant-defendants shall deposit the monthly rent in the second suit now pending between the parties on or before 15th of each succeeding month and in case the plaintiff gives any bank account, then, the defendants shall deposit the amount of future rent in the said account of the plaintiff. (ii) The withdrawal of the rent or receipt of rent by the plaintiff will not, in any manner, prejudice his rights regarding the controversy raised in the suit. (iii) The decisions of the Courts below, rejecting the application of the defendants u/s. 13 (3) of the Rent Control Act will not, in any ma- nner, affect the rights of the defendants in contesting the present suit on the ground that they have not committed any default in the payment of rent. (iv) The plaintiff would be free to take an objection before the trial Court in the second suit that the rent deposited by the defendants in the earlier suit No. 158/71 was not made in time, or according to the provisions of the Rent Control Act, or in compliance with the orders of the Court in that case. It will be relevant to mention that the first suit was instituted by the plaintiff-non-petitioners on 4. 3. 1971 on two grounds : (1) Default in payment of rent; (2) Reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff to occupy the shop premises. During the pendency of the first suit, an Ordinance came to be passed by the State Government on 28. 9. 1975, whereby the Sec. 13- A was inserted in the Act of 1950, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under : (a) No Court shall, in any proceeding pending on the date of commencement of the (amending Ordinance) pass any decree in favour of a landlord for eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, if the tenant applies u/cl. (b) and pays to the landlord, or deposits in Court, with such time such aggregate of the amount of rent in arrears, interest thereon and full costs of the suit, as may be directed by the Court under and in accordance within that clause; (b) In every such proceeding, the Court shall, on the application of the tenant made within thirty days, from the date of commencement of the Amending Ordinance notwithstanding any order to the contrary, determine the amount of rent in arrears upto the date of the order as also the amount of interest thereon at six per cent per annum and costs of the suit allowable to the landlord; and direct the tenant to pay the amount so determined within such time, not exceeding ninety days, as may be fixed by the Court and on such payment being made within the time fixed as aforesaid, the proceeding shall be disposed of, as if the tenant had not committed any default; (c) The provisions of Cls. (a) & (b) shall mutatis-mutandis apply to all appeals or applications for revisions; preferred or made, after the commencement of the (amending Ordinance), against decrees for eviction passed before such commencement with the variation that in Cl. (b) for the expression ``from the date of commencement of the Amending Act'', the expression ``from the date of presentation of the memorandum of appeal or application for revision shall be substituted. On 23. 1. 1978 second suit was filed by the non-petitioner- landlord against the petitioners-tenants for their eviction u/s. 13 (1) (a) of the Act that the tenant had not paid entire arrears of rent, due from him for the period 1. 3. 1976 to 31. 12. 1977 i. e. for a period of 22 months and had thus committed second default and since he had not complied with the second order passed by the trial Court in the previous suit by paying or depositing the rent to the landlord, therefore, he was liable to be evicted on the ground of second default from the shop premises in dispute. On 7. 11. 1978, the petitioners submitted an application in the second suit i. e. the present suit, whereby they requested the trial Court for determination of provisional rent u/s. 13 (3) of the Act and sought further direction that the amount already deposited by them in the earlier suit No. 158/71 be allowed to be adjusted in the present suit and if any amount is still found due, the same may be determined and the defendants were willing to deposit the same. Another specific direction was sought from the trial Court by the petitioners as to in what manner and in which suit the future rent is to be deposited. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 18. 1. 1984 rejected the aforesaid application of the petitioners on the ground that the tenant is not entitled to get an order u/s. 13 (3) of the Act in the second suit. Against this the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Addl. Civil Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, who too dismissed the same vide its order dated 15. 10. 1984.
(3.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before this Court and the said revision petition (earlier petition) No. 165/85 came to be disposed of vide order of this Court dated 8. 7. 1985 as referred to above. Thereafter, 6. 9. 1995, the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed an application before the trial Court that in accordance with the aforesaid order of this Court dated 8. 7. 1985, the tenant may be directed to deposit the rent in the S. B. Account No. 14/2718 of S. B. I. Kanwar Nagar Branch, Jaipur. The aforesaid application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the said application was malafide, but yet he was ready to comply with the directions of this Court. It is significant to mention that the aforesaid application was made notwithstanding the earlier order dated 2. 5. 1984 of the trial Court directing the petitioner to deposit the rent w. e. f. January'95 onwards in the bank account given by the plaintiff. The said application was decided by the trial Court vide its order dated 9. 5. 1995 with the direction that the earlier order dated 2. 5. 1994 in any way does not violate the directions of this Court given on 8. 7. 1985 and hence no further clarification was necessary. On 3. 3. 1986, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint u/o. 6 R. 17 CPC with a prayer that the following new prayer be allowed to be added in para 6-Ka of the plaint : *** ;