It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : It is not necessary to deal with the merits of the points which the appellant wanted to raise before us in this appeal, because we are satisfied that the respondent s prayer that the special leave granted to the appellant should be revoked, is well founded. The appellant is a tenant of the premises in suit which are owned by the respondent. These premises were let out to the appellant by the respondent under a rent note executed on the 8th December, 1953. The appellant was permitted to use the said premises for his Oil Mill. The terms of the lease provided that the appellant was to pay to the respondent the agreed rent every month and in case of default for three months the respondent was entitled to evict the appellant before the expiry of the stipulated period which was five years, and in that case he was entitled also to claim the rent for the remaining period.

2. On the 2nd of May, 1959, the respondent sued the appellant for ejectment in the Court of Munsif, East Jaipur City. He alleged that he had received the rent from the appellant up to the 31st October, 1957 and that thereafter the appellant had defaulted in the payment of rent in spite of repeated demands, and that even at the date of the suit he was in arrears of rent and had failed to pay the house tax according to the agreement. His case was that the appellant s tenancy had expired on the 1st of December 1958 by efflux of time, but the appellant never the less failed to deliver over possession of the premises to the respondent. He, however, purported to deposit a lump sum of Rs. l053/- to cover the period from 1st November, 1957 to 30th November, 1958 which was due from him. The respondent pleaded that the appellant had committed more than three defaults in the payment of rent of two months each during the period of 18 months and that even at the date of the suit, the rent or mesne profits for 5 months and 2 days still remained to be paid. That is the basis on which a decree for ejectment was claimed by the respondent against the appellant.

3. The appellant denied the respondent s claim and alleged that the respondent was not entitled to claim ejectment against him by virtue of the provisions of S. 13 (I) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act 17 of 1950) hereinafter called the Act). He also pleaded that by virtue of the fact that the respondent had accepted rent paid by the appellant he had waved his right to evict him. In other words, he denied that there was any default, and resisted the respondent s prayer for his ejectment. At the date of the first hearing of the suit in the trial Court, the appellant deposited Rs. 648/- on account of rent due up to the said date and the said payment was accepted by the respondent without prejudice.

4. On those pleading, the learned trial Judge framed four issues, the principal issue being whether the appellant had committed three defaults of two months within the period of 18 months in the payment of rent? The finding of the trial Court on the said issue as well as on the other issues framed by it was in favour of the appellant. In the result, the respondent s suit was dismissed.

5. The respondent then preferred an appeal in the Court of the Additional Session Judge, Jaipur City, the appellate Court held that on the facts proved by the respondents, the three defaults had been committed by the appellant, and so, he was entitled to a decree for ejectment. On these findings, the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the respondent s claim for ejectment was allowed.

6. The appellant challenged this decision by preferring a second appeal before the Rajasthan High Court. The appeal was heard by a learned single Judge of the said High Court and was dismissed. The appellant s request for leave to prefer an appeal under Letters Patent was rejected by the learned Judge. It is against the decision of the learned single Judge in the second appeal that the appellan