Judgment Dwarka Prasad, J.-In this second appeal, arising out of a suit for eviction of a tenant from the rented premises, learned Counsel for the tenant appellant has made two submissions: His first contention is that the expression “the first date of hearing” occurring in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) should be construed as the date on which the Court applied its mind to the facts of the case and framed the issues and not the date fixed for appearance in the summons issued to the defendant. The second contention of learned Counsel is that the trial Court failed to determine the amount payable by the tenant in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act and the amount, deposited by the tenant towards arrears of rent and interest thereon, was withdrawn by the landlord plaintiff on July 31, 1969, during the pendency of the suit without any demur and as such the plaintiff should be deemed to have waived the objection that the amount was not deposited on the first date of hearing.

2. Thenecessary facts which have led to the aforesaid controversy may

Click Here to Read the rest of this document