K. S. LODHA, J. - (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when a suit for ejectment on the basis of a second default, after the tenant has already taken the benefit u/s 13 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is filed, it is still necessary for the court to determine the provisional rent according to section 13 (3) of the said Act. This contention has been negatived by both the courts below and in my opinion rightly. A bar perusal of the provisions of sections 13 (1) (a), (3) (4) and (6) alongwith its proviso, which are re-produced for the sake of ready reference would clearly borne,out that in such a suit the court is not required to determine the rent under section 13 (3) "sec. 13-Eviction of tenants- (1) Notwithstanding anything, contained in any law or contract no court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied. (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months; (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (3) In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of subsection (1) or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section the courts shall, on the first date of hearing or any other date as the court may fix in this behalf which shall not be more than three months after filing of the written statement and shall be before the framing of the issues, after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. Such amount shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was last paid for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which such determination is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of six percent per annum from the date when any amount was payable upto the date of determination. Provided that while determining the amount under this sub-section, the court shall not take into account the amount of rent which was barred by limitation on the date of the suit. (4) THE tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the court under sub-section (3) within fifteen days from the date of such determination, or within such further time, not exceeding three months, as may be extended by the court. THE tenant shall also continue to deposit in court or pay to the landlord, month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period up to which determination has been made, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month or within such further time, not exceeding fifteen days, as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court under sub-section (3 ). (5 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (6) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by sub-section (4) no decree for eviction on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be passed by the court against him. " The exercise of determination of the rent under section 13 (3) in such a second suit would be futile inasmuch as the proviso to sub-sec. (6) of section 13, clearly provides that the tenant will not be entitled to the relief under subsection (6) if he has already taken advantages of it in a previous suit. The learned counsel, however, contends that till the question of the second default is determined the tenant is entitled to deposit the rent with the court so as to avoid any further default. The tenant in such a second suit need not necessarily deposit the amount of rent under sub-section (4) of section 13. He can have resort to section 19 (a) of the said Act. It was also contended that unless the question of second default is determined the tenant cannot be deprived of the benefit of sub-section (6) to section 13. I am clearly of the opinion that the contention is devoid of any force. If is for the plaintiff to establish the same his suit shall fail and if the second default is proved a decree for ejectment would follow. In these circumstances no interference is called with the orders of the courts below. The revision is, therefore, summarily rejected. . ;