The main legal point established is that under the Rent Control Act, a tenant is obligated to deposit time-barred rent along with due rent on the first date of hearing, and failure to do so constitutes default justifying eviction.

SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-1987 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bikaner in Civil Appeal No. 58/86 by which he allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant-appellant from the suit premises on the ground of default as envisaged under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Act") and reversed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 20-1-1983 passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff, Bikaner in Civil suit No. 54/78 by which the learned Addl. Munsiff dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding the defendant-appellant as first defaulter. Note :- it may stated here that the suit premises were purchased by one Manoharlal from the original-plaintiff-respondent Hari Narayan and, therefore, he moved an application on 2-9-1994 for impleading him as party respondent in place of original plaintiff Hari Narayan and that application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 1-12-1995 and Manoharlal was impleaded as respondent in this second appeal in place of Hari Narayan.

( 2 ) IT arises in the following circumstances:- on 30-5-1975, the original plaintiff - Hari Narayan filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff, Bikaner with the averments that the property mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint was given on rent to the defendant-appellant and monthly rent was Rs. 25. 00 and since May, 1968, the rent was reduced from Rs. 25. 00 p. m. to Rs. 20. 00 p. m. , but in Rs. 20. 00, Rs. 1. 50 was further added as house tax. It was further averred in the plaint that the defendant-appellant had paid rent up to January, 1965 and, thereafter, he committed default in making payment of rent. A notice terminating the tenancy was given by the plaintiff to the defendant -appellant. In para No. 5 of the plaint, it was averred by the plaintiff that though rent since January, 1965 became due to the tune of Rs. 3055. 84, but since this amount included the time barred rent, therefore, the rent to the tune of Rs. 774. 00 for a period of three years was claimed by the plaintiff and the suit was based merely on the ground of default as envisaged under S. 13 (1) (a) of the Rent Control Act and eviction of the defendant-appellant was sought on that ground alone. It may be stated here that on first date of hearing i. e. on 1-9-1975, the defendant-appellant made an application under S. 13 (4) of the Rent Control Act as was applicable on that day and requested the Court that the amount of rent be determined as he was ready to deposit the amount under protest, as claimed in the plaint. On that application, the Court passed the following order:-"the tenant may deposit the amount as per provisions of S. 13 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. It hardly requires any order from the Court or assent of the landlord. The rent for each succeeding month is also payable under the directions of the statute. The rent is stated to be Rs. 21. 50 p. m. "after that, the defendant-appellant deposited that amount of rent which was claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint, in the following manner :- rs. 854/- as rent for 40 months up to 31-8-1975 rs. 82/- as interest rs. 8/- for notice __________ rs. 944/- __________ the defendant-appellant filed his written statement on 10-3-1977 in which he admitted that he was tenant of the plaintiff, but according to the defendant-appellant, the rent was Rs. 15. 00 per month and it was never increased or decreased as alleged by the original-plaintiff-respondent. The defendant-appellant further pleaded that under protest on the first date of hearing, he had already deposited the amount of rent at the rate of Rs. 21. 50 p. m. as claimed by the original plaintiff-respondent himself. Hence, the suit be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, on 21-4-1977,