DINESH MEHTA,J. - (1.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, the appeal is admitted for adjudication of the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the appellate Court and the Trial Court were legally correct in holding that the modes of payment of rent prescribed under Section 19-A (3) (a to c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 are the modes to be opted/followed in that order ? or the payment by any of the modes prescribed in the said provision is permissible? (ii) Whether the deposit of rent with the Court, being one of the modes prescribed under Section 19-A (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, by the defendant was not in confirmity with the provisions of the Act?" Mr. M.M. Dhera, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the following question (on No.A) suggested in the memo of appeal also arises for consideration of this Court. "Whether the Lower Courts were not right in holding that First Default in previous suit No.71/1993 had been made out despite the previous suit having abated due to death of defendant Dharam Chand dated 29-1-1997 and the withdrawal of the suit on 31-7-1997 per contra the provisions of Order 22 Rule 9 and Order 23 Rule 2 CPC and the Law declared by Apex Court in Case of Ram Niwas Vs. Malik; AIR 1999 1 SC 1088?" In support of his submissions Mr. Dhera relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in AIR 1999 1 SC 1088 Ram Niwas Vs. Malik. Mr. O.P. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent in this regard submits that though, the question has not been properly framed, but what has been sought to be raised, has been completely answered by this Court in the case of Jaitoon and Ors. Vs. Roop Chand; 2007(1) DNJ (Raj.) 202 Having perused the judgment cited by Mr. Dhera, learned counsel for the appellant, in the case of Ram Niwas (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the same has no relevance or bearing in the facts involved in the present case, whereas the judgment cited by Mr. Mehta squarely covers the point. Since, the question sought to be raised by Mr. Dhera has already been answered by this Court, no additional question or the question proposed by him is required to be framed and decided in this case. The appellant-tenant had earlier committed a default in payment of rent and has taken advantage of the first default as held by the Courts below. Issue notice. Mr. O.P. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, accepts notice.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent landlord submits that if the Court is inclined to stay the execution of the decree impugned, reasonable mesne profit be awarded to the landlord, as the property in question is a residential house constructed over a plot of land admeasuring 30 X 60 Ft. and being used by the appellant for his commercial purpose viz. godown. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.2163/2017 :
(3.) Heard on the stay application.;