P. D. KUDAL, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7-2-1968, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer.
(2.) BRIEF facts which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant brought a suit in the Court of the Munsiff, Ajmer City (West) alleging that the defendant is a statutory tenant with respect to the premises described in para 1 of the plaint on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/ -. A suit for ejectment had already been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant in this very court. The defendant also filed a civil suit in the Court of Munsiff, Ajmer City (East) for fixation of standard rent. Provisional rent was fixed at Rs. 55/- per month on 27. 11. 1962, under the provisions of section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the Act ). The plaintiff-appellant's case is that the defendant was directed to deposit the provisional rent in the Court; but he committed several defaults and in view of the provisions of sec. 7 (4) of the Act he is liable to be evicted. A schedule was also attached to the plaint showing the defaults committed by the defendants-respondents. The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff. The learned Munsiff held that though the defendant has committed defaults in deposit of provisional rent, yet, by virtue of section 13 (l) (a) of the Act, the defendant could be liable to ejectment only when the essential requirement of sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Act are met. It was further held that the - default within the meaning of sec. 7 (4) of the Act must be such as to comply with the requirement of section 13 (1) (a) of the Act, before an order of ejectment could be passed. With those observations, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 25-4-1967. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer. The learned first appellate Court agreed with the reasonings of the learned trial Court, and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on 7-2-1968. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved has come up in second appeal before this Court. The only point which has been agitated in the second appeal is that default in payment of provisional rent within the meaning of Section 7 (4) of the Act should render the defendant liable to ejectment. Section 7 (4) of the Act reads as under: - "any failure to pay the provisional rent for any month by the fifteenth day of the next following month shall render the tenant liable to eviction under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13, and all sums due from the tenant as such rent shall be recoverable from him as if the order under sub-sec. (1) were a decree of the Court in a suit for periodical payments. " Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act reads as under: - "13 (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 therefor 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; or" The learned counsel for the appellants has relied on Yar Mohammad vs. Roshan Lal (l)and Smt. Manohar Davi vs. Kundanlal (2 ). The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on Manohar Das vs. Anandi Lal Sharma (3 ). The eviction of a tenant could be ordered only when one of the conditions laid down in section 13 of the Act is satisfied. Section 7 (4) of the Act states that failure to pay provisional rent for any month by the fifteenth day of the next following month shall render the tenant liable to eviction under sec. 13 (l) (a) of the Act. While sec. 13 (l) (a) says that the tenant shall be liable to ejectment if he has neither paid nor rendered the amount of rent due from him for six months. The amended provisions came into force on 9-6-1965. The plaintiff's suit was instituted on 18-9-65. Thus, the present suit brought by the plaintiff would be governed by the amended provisions of sec. 13 (l) (a) of the Act. To satisfy the condition of sec. 13 (l) (a), there must be a default of six months' rent. The plaintiff-appellants' contention that even a default of single month in the payment of provisional rent under sec. 7 (4) of the Act should render a tenant liable to ejectment cannot be accepted. Sec. 7 (4) envisages a default, and this default shall be counted for the purpose of sec. 13 (l) (a) of the Act. To constitute a default rendering the tenant liable for ejectment it must be a default for payment of the rent for six months. This sec. 7 (4) of the said Act cannot override the provisions of sec. 13 (l) (a) of the Act.
(3.) HAVING given my most anxious consideration to the facts of the case, I have no hesitation in holding that non-payment of provisional rent under Sec. 7 (4) of the Act does constitute a default, but it does not constitute a default within the meaning of Sec. 13 (1 ) (a) rendering the tenant liable for ejectment unless such default is for payment of rent for six months. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants could not establish that the default committed by the tenant are such as to fulfill the requirement of Sec. 13 (l) (a ). I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the judgments of the learned lower Courts. As such, there is no reason to take a different view. For the reasons stated above, there is no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs. .;