The Court emphasized the importance of consistent actions and admissions in determining rent disputes and upheld the consequences of prior defaults in rent payment.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 1.

2. This appeal is by the tenant-defendant appellant against the Judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 30.05.1980 passed in Civil Suit No. 57/1975 and the appellate Judgment and decree dated 011.1984 dismissing the appeal of the defendant-tenant-appellant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Nain Mal filed the suit for eviction of his tenant Vijay Raj before the trial Court on 30.04.1975. According to the plaintiff , the suit property was let out to defendant for a rent of Rs. 30 per month for which a rent-deed was executed on 27.07.1971. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant paid the rent amounting to Rs. 425/-only for the period from 01.08.1971 to 312.1972 and, therefore, Rs. 85/-is due in the defendant against the rent amount. It is submitted that from 01.01.1973, no rent was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and, therefore by the time of filing of the suit, the tenant defendant has become defaulter in payment of rent, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to decree for eviction of the tenant. The plaintiff , before filing of the suit, served a notice upon the defendant through his Advocate on 212.1974 but the defendant did not reply the notice nor deliver the possession of the suit property, therefore, he suit was filed. The plaintiff also pleaded that the suit property is required for the personal bona fide need of the plaintiff .

4. The defendant denied the need of the plaintiff for the shop in dispute and for the rent he pleaded that in fact the defendant took the suit premises on rent of Rs. 25/-per month only. It is stated by the defendant that in fact the suit shop was taken on rent by oral agreement in the year 1959 on rent of Rs. 13/ per month which was increased to Rs. 17.50 per month from 23.07.1961 and thereafter Rs. 20/-on 01.02.1964 and thereafter Rs. 25/- per month from 010.1966. According to the defendant, the rent continued to be Rs. 25/-per month only. The defendant however admitted the rent-deed but pleaded that in fact the plaintiff brought rent deed and obtained the signature of the defendant with assurance that the terms and conditions of the rent tenancy shall remain as they were in existence and the rent will be Rs. 25/-per month. It is also submitted that on 01.08.1971, when the plaintiff repairing demanded increased rent, the defendant asked the plaintiff to give some more benefit regarding of the shop and then the defendant will pay Rs. 30/-.

5.The plaintiff submitted rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendant. The trial Court framed the issues whether the suit property was let out for Rs. 30/-per month and whether Rs. 85/-is due in the defendant as due rent for the period from 01.07.1971 to 312.1972, whether any hardship will be caused to the defendant in case the decree for eviction is passed.

6. Beforethe trial Court, the defendant submitted an application on 27.08.1975 under Section 13(4)-(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short "the Act of 1950") that though he has not received the copy of the plaint but still he is ready to deposit the rent as claimed in the plaint. The trial Court directed the defendant to deposit the rent as claimed in the plaint within 15 days and further in accordance with law, obviously as provided under Section 13(4)-(5) of the Act of 1950. This order dated 27.08.1975 was never under challenge, rather the defendant deposited the rent as per the direction of the Court dated 27.08.1975. On 03.03.1976, an application was submitted by the plaintiff under Section 13(5) old (New 13(6)) of the Act of 1950 for striking out of the defence of the tenant-defendant on the ground that the defendant did not deposit the arrears of rent of Rs. 85/-and interest on rent and further he has not deposited the rent of the month of September, 1975 in time, therefore, the defendant defence may be struck off . The trial Court after hearing bot