Striking off the defense under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 does not mean that the tenant is deprived of all defenses available under Section 13 of the Act.

Judgment Guman Mal Lodha, J.-A Sin of non or late payment of rent under Section 13(4); may be due to poverty; negligence or deliberate; whether would create handicap limited to defenceless under Section 13(i)(a) or would make tenant completely unarmed and defenceless against all weapons in armoury of landlord for eviction under Section 13(1) as a whole, is the question in this legal cum socio economic debate?

2. I have invited the Bar in general to enlighten me. Unfortunately, the response is limited even though the repercussions can be unlimited.

3. And now traditional narrations,

4. Thisis a revision petition under Section 115, CPC, against the order of District Judge, Alwar, passed on 13th Oct. ‘84, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 149/83.

5. It is common ground that from Oct. ‘81 to July’82, an amount of Rs. 26,00/-was deposited on 24th July, ‘82 and not by the 15th day of the next month. On the above premises, both the lower Courts have found that the defence against eviction deserves to be struck off under Section 13(4)(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

6. Mr. R. M. Lodha has challenged the order of the lower appellate Court under Section 115, CPC, on various grounds. The first ground is that his client used to send money-order every month, and according to him, payment by money-order even if the landlord refuses to accept it, is payment, as per the deeming provision of Section 19, introduced by the amendment.

7. Now, a look at Sections 13 and 13-A, which reads as under:-“Section 13 Eviction of tenants.--(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 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 month; or

.(b) that the tenant has wilfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises; or

.(c) that the tenant has without the permission of the landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction as, in the opinion of the Court has materially altered the premises or is likely to diminish the value thereof; or

.(d) that the tenant has created a nuisance or has done any, act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the premises or which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the landlord’s interest therein; or

.(e) that the tenant has assigned, sub-let or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without the permission of the landlord; or

.(f) that the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord and the latter has not waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant; or

.(g) that the premises were let to the tenant for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord and that the tenant has ceased to be in such service or employment; or

.(h) that the premises are required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord

.(i) for the use or occupation of himself or his family, or

.(ii) for the use or occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held, or

(iii) for a public purpose or

.(iv) for philanthropic use; or

.(i) that the tenant has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence; or

.(j) that the premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit; or

.(k) that the landlord requires the premises in order to carry out any building work.

.(i) at the instance of the (State Government) in persuance of an improvement scheme or development scheme; or

.(ii) because the premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document