Judgment Inder Sen Israni, J.-Both the revisions arise out of the same order dt. 7th Oct., 1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dholpur upholding the orders dt. 20-5-1986 passed in Civil Case No. 11/84 and 9/84. Since common point oflaw is involved in both the petitions, therefore, they are disposed of by this single order.

2. The contention oflearned counsel Shri B. K. Sharma appearing for the petitioners is that the non-petitioner tenant has not complied with the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), inasmuch as he has failed to deposit in Court or to pay to the landlord rent month by month by 15th of each succeeding month or within such further time, not exceeding 15 days, as may be extended by the Court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. He has pointed out that according to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, the non-petitioner has to deposit the rent month by month before 15 of the succeeding month, but in the present case the non-petitioner tenant has deposited the rent in advance and thus has failed to deposit the rent month by month as laid down in the Act. It is, therefore, contended that since the non-petitioner has neither paid to the landlord not deposited in the Court the rent month by month as laid down in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, therefore, his defence against eviction is liable to be struck off under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act, but both the Courts below rejected his plea, therefore, this revision petition has been filed.

3. My attention has been drawn to the case of Firm Kripal Ram Ganeshi Lal vs. Vijay Kumar Goyal, a Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported in 1986 Rajasthan LR 236, in which it was held that the word ‘shall’ occurring in expression “the Court shall order thedefence against eviction to be struck out” in Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act is imperative, mandatory and not merely directory or permissible. It was, therefore, held that striking out defence for not depositing the arrears of rent determined by the Court in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act even without extending the time, was mandatory and the Court had no power to extend the time beyond 3 months.

4. In the case of Ujjal Singh and Sons vs. Rajendra Kr. Kedia, AIR 1986 Pat 162, it has been held that the rent for July had not become due whether the M.O. was sent. Observed that there is nothing in Section 11(1)(d) or Section 13(1) which enables the tenant to send rent in advance. Hence the landlord was justified in refusing to accept the M.O. as he could not accept it in part only (that is for rent in respect of July only). The remission was invalid and could not be availed of by the tenant to save his eviction.

5. In the matter of Ram Saran vs. Nathulal, 1984 Rajasthan LR 168, it was held by this Court that the findings of lower Courts on the question whether the receipt of rent was genuine or not and whether there was sufficient cause made out by the tenant for extending the period for payment of rent could not be interfered in revisional jurisdiction.

6. I agreewith the contention of the learned Counsel that the provisions of Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act are mandatory and the defence of the non-petitioner-tenant has to be struck out, if the tenant fails to deposit the arrears of rent as determined by the Court within the prescribed time, or within the extended time and thereafter also the tenant is liable to deposit the rent month by month by 15 of each succeeding month or within such further time not exceeding 15 days as may be extended by the Court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. However, in the matter under consideration the tenant has not failed to fulfil any of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document