JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Udaipur dated 2-7-1987whereby the learned trial court has held that the defendant-non-petitioner has not committed any second default entitiling the plaintiffs to a decree of ejectment against the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed with costs. The contention of the defendant-non-petitioner to award special costs has also been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are: that the plaintiffs let out their shop, the particulars of which are mentioned in para 1 of the plaint, to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 800/-but it appears that some portion of it was released from his tenancy and, therefore, on 13-5-1987 on the basis of the mutual agreement between the parties, the rent of the suit-shop was fixed at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month with effect from 1-6-1977. However, the defendant did not pay the rent of the suit-shop for about 7 months from 1-7-1981 to 31-7-1981 and, therefore, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit against the defendant-non-petitioner on 6-8-1981 on the ground that the! defendant has committed default in payment of rent and, therefore a decree for eviction may be passed against him. That suit was decided on 27-5-1982 holding that this is the first default committed by the defendant and therefore, a decree for eviction cannot be passed against him. THE defendant has further failed to pay the rent for a period of about 6 months from 1-5-1982 and as such, he has become second defaulter in payment of rent; THE plaintiffs have claimed that their cause of action arose on 1-11-1982. THEy have further claimed that rent for a period of about 7 months is due from the defendant on the date of the suit which happens to be 20-12-1982. The defendant filed his written statement on 31-5-1983. He has admitted paras No. 1 to 3 of the plaint. In other words he has admitted his tenancy at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month from 1-6-1977. He has submitted that even earlier he was not a defaulter because he has remitted rent to the plaintiffs through cheques but the plaintiffs did. not submit those cheques for encashment before the Bank and have returned them back to the plaintiffs. He has admitted that earlier a suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and that has been decided by the learned Civil Judge, Udaipur. He has totally denied the allegation of second default. He has submitted that he has. paid rent to the defendant in cash. The plaintiffs retained that money and when the defendant insisted for issuing a receipt, they returned the money to them and, therefore, the defendant was forced to deposit this rent amounting to Rs. 3,000/- in the Court under s. 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to' as 'the Act') from 1-5-1982 to 31-10-1982 on 29-10-1982 through Tender No. 1711. The rent for the month of November 1982 to April 1983 was deposited under s. 19-A of the Act on 7-5-1983 through Tender No. 369. He has, therefore, submitted that he has not made any default in the payment of rent and, therefore, he has claimed special costs because the suit has been brought to harass him. On the basis of these pleadings of the parties, following three issues were framed, which when translated into English reads as follows: (1) Whether the defendant has committed second default in payment of rent? (2) Whether the defendant is entitled to any special costs under s. 35a of the Code of Civil Procedure? (3) Relief? In support of these issues, from the side of the plaintiffs PW 1 Ganpat Lal and PW 2 Narayan Lal, both plaintiffs and PW 3 Madan Lal have entered the witness box whereas the defendant himself has examined as DW 1. The learned lower Court,, hearing both the parties, decides issue No. 1 in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs and issue No. 2 was decided against the defendant, ft has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants as aforesaid and hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. I have heard Mr, N. P. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants and Mr. R. L. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondent and have carefully gone through the record of the case. In this case, the main question that arises for the decision of this Court is whether the defendant has committed the second default in payment of the rent. It is admitted case of the parties that in the proceedings that were filed earlier before the learned Civil Judge, Udaipur, it has been held that the defendant has committed first default in payment of rent and, therefore, I have to decide in this appeal as to whether the finding of the learned lower court that the defendant has not committed second default can be sustained on the basis of the evidence on record or not.
(3.) MR. R. L. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that second default also has to be a default in payment of rent, for a continuous period of six months. In this case, the suit was filed on 20. 12. 1982 and till then, rent from May 1982 to November 1982 became due. The rent from May to October, 1982 was paid on 29. 10. 1982 and thus, there is no default in payment of rent for a continuous period of six months. In this respect, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Khajoolal Vs. Amar Chand 1 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court observed as under: "to my mind, the default after the rent is due, should continue for six months. The section would normally be applicable to a case where rent is required to be paid month by month but in a case where the yearly rent is reserved or required to be paid in terms of the contract, the rent must not have been paid for six months after it had fallen due and then alone this clause would be attracted. " That was a case of yearly rent. The yearly rent was fixed, at Rs. 20/ -. In that case, actually two shops were let out to the defendant, one of which let out on the yearly rent and the other one was let out on monthly rent. As regards the shop which was let out to the defendant on monthly rent basis, the learned Judge has held that the defendant was clearly a defaulter for a period exceeding six months. As regards the shop, about which rent was payable yearly, the learned Judge observed that the nub of the matter, therefore, is whether in such a situation, can it be held within the meaning of s. 13 (1) (a) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due to him for six months. After quoting the provisions of s. 13 (1) of the Act, the learned Judge observed that the language of the section is not appropriate in the case of the present kind. The section contemplates fulfilment of two things: viz,, (i) that the amount of rent must have fallen due and that would naturally be in terms of the contract and (ii) that it should not have been paid or tendered for six months. To my mind, the default after the rent is due, should continue for six months. The section would normally be applicable to a case where rent is required to be paid month by month but in a case where the yearly rent is reserved or required to be paid in terms. of the contract, the rent must not have been paid for six months after it had fallen due and then alone this clause would be attracted. Thus, this is a decision about a case in which yearly rent has been reserved or required to be paid in terms of the contract and so, it has no application to the facts of the present case. Mr. N. P. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellants has submitted that in a case of second default, the proviso to s. 13 (6) of the Act categorically provides that a tenant shall not be entitled to any relief under this sub-section, if having contained such benefit or benefits under s. 13-A in respect of any such accommodation if he again makes a default in the payment of rent of that accommodation for six months. The expression 'for six months' cannot be interpreted so as to mean a default in payment of rent for a continuous period of six months. To support this contention he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Hanuman Das Vs. Sanwalram (2 ). That was a case where rent for the months of June, September, November and December of the year 1975 and March and July of the year 1976 was not paid nor tendered within the stipulated time provided by law i. e. before the 15th of the next succeeding month. In those circumstances, the learned Judge observed that as the provisions of s. 19-A were not complied with, so far as the payments of rent for the months of June, September, November and December of the year 1975 and March and July of the year 1976 are concerned, the tenant should be held to have committed defaults in payment of rent for a period of six months. This matter again came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in Bajranglal V. Ramdeo (3) wherein a contention was raised that if there is default in payment of rent for a period of six months, then the default clause is attracted. It was further contended that it is not necessary under s. 13 (1) (a) of the Act that there should be default in payment of rent for a continuous period of six months. Rather, it was submitted that this clause is fully attracted in cases where defaults in payment of rent of six or more months are committed sporadically prior to the filing of the suit. This was a case where rent for the months of November and December 1975, January, February, March, May, June and July, 1976 and April 1977 were not paid in time and it was held that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent for a period of six months and, therefore, he is liable to ejectment. Neither in s. 13 (1) (a) nor in proviso to s. 13 (6) of the Act, it has been provided that default in payment of rent should be for a continuous period of six months. What is provided is that the default should be for a period of six months. Thus, these two authorities cited by Mr. N. P. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants apply on all fours to the case in hand and. therefore, I hold that the tenant should be held to have committed default in payment of rent for a period of six months prior to the filing of the suit in case the suit is filed under s. 13 (1) (a) of the Act or in cases where the suit is filed under s. 1. 3 (6) of the Act for commission of the second default. It is a settled principle of interpretation of Statutes that where the language of a particular provision is clear, categorical or unambiguous and it can be put to its grammatical meaning that meaning should, be given to it. We need not add any words to it when it was not so intended by the legislature. If the intention of the framers of the law was that the default entitling a landlord to eject his tenant has to be for a continuous period of six months nothing prevented it from inserting the word 'continuous' in between the words 'for a period of' and 'six months'. In this view of the matter, I reject the contention of Mr. Maheshwari that the second default committed by the tenant so as to entitle the plaintiff, to get a decree for ejectment, should be for a continuous period of six months. ;