The provisions of Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, as amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Ordinance 1975, do not apply to pending suits and actions.

K.S. Sidhu, J.-This petition of revision under Section 115 CPC is directed against the appellate order, dated, July 23, 1981, by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur City whereby that learned Judge affirmed the order, dated, December 12, 1980, by the trial Court dismissing the petitioner’s application, dated, April 11, 1980, for provisional determination of arrears of rent payable by the petitioner-tenant to the respondent-landlord, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (3), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, as amended to date.

2. Thefacts which may be helpful in appreciating the controversy may be briefly recapitulated here. Prem Kishore, who is the respondent in this petition and who will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff , filed a suit against Kishanlal Sharma, the present petitioner, who will hereinafter be referred to as the defendant, for eviction from certain residential premises on the averments that the defendant is in occupation of the premises as a tenant since June, 1971, that the original landlord, Mukat Beharilal, sold the premises to the plaintiff , vide sale deed, dated, May 20, 1974, registered on June 17, 1974, that the vendor duly notified the defendant ashing him to attorn to the plaintiff and pay rent to him from May 20, 1974 onwards and that the defendant had rendered himself liable to be evicted from these premises by reason of non-payment of rent due from him from September 1, 1974 to June 30, 1975. The plaintiff mentioned in this context that earlier he had filed a suit for eviction against the defendant in respect of the same premises on the ground of personal bona fide necessity and for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from May 20, 1974 to August 31, 1974, and that the same was still pending on July 2, 1975, when the present suit was filed.

3. The defendant filed his written statement on March 13, 1976, admitting that he had been inducted into the premises by Mukat Behari Lal on a rental of Rs. 50/-per mensem which was increased to Rs. 58/-per mensem with effect from February 1, 1972. He also admitted that Mukat Behari Lal had executed the sale deed, dated, May 20, 1974, in respect of these premises in favour of the plaintiff as vendee. He however described the sale as fictitious and benami which had been brought about by Mukat Beharilal so that he could obtain a decree for eviction in the name of the plaintiff on the ground of the latter’s personal necessity.

4. Asalready stated, the suit out of which this petition of revision has arisen was filed on July 2, 1975. Section 13 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, as it then stood at the time of institution of the suit (hereinafter called the old Act) required, that the tenant shall on the first day of hearing, or on or before such date as the Court may on an application made to it fix in this behalf , or within such time not exceeding two months, as may be extended by the Court, deposit in Court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made the default. It is a matter of record, and it is indeed admitted by the defendant, that the first day of hearing in the suit was on September 26, 1975, when the defendant entered appearance and made an application under Section 10 CPC for stay of proceedings in the suit by reason of the pendency of a previously instituted suit in respect of the same subject matter. In other words, the defendant did not comply with the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the old Act on the first day of hearing inasmuch as he did not deposit in Court or pay to the plaintiff the arrears of rent for the period from September 1, 1974, to September 26, 1975 at the admitted rate of Rs. 58/-per mensem or for that matter at any other rate. Instead, he made an application nearly five years later, i. e., on April 11, 1980, for provisional determination