1982 Supreme(Raj) 249

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.M.Lodha, J.
Siya Sadan - Appellant
Versus
Sagar Mal and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Application No. 537 of 1975.
Decided On : 12-02-1982

Sub-sections (3) to (6) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, which provide for striking out of defence in case of default in payment of rent, cease to apply once the ground of default disappears on account of compliance with the requirements of Section 13A of the Act.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL - RAJASTHAN PREMISES (CONTROL OF RENT & EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 13 - INTERPRETATION - SUB-SECTIONS (2) TO (6) - STRIKING OUT OF DEFENCE - EFFECT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13A - SUBSIDIARY AND SUB-SERVIENT PROVISIONS - DISAPPEARANCE OF GROUND OF DEFAULT - CONSEQUENT INAPPLICABILITY OF SUB-SECTIONS (3) TO (6).

Fact of the Case:

Tenant failed to deposit rent within time for the months of June, July and August 1968. His application for condonation of delay was accepted by the trial Court. On appeal, the learned District Judge held that the rent for the month of August has been deposited late by one day, so he struck off the defence of the appellant. The tenant moved an application for framing an issue regarding the plea of default and the trial Court framed the same. The plaintiffs filed revision petition in this Hon'ble Court and the issue regarding default was deleted. The trial Court then recorded the evidence of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit on all counts. The defendant went in appeal, and the learned appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on the issue of sub-letting, but confirmed the finding on other issues and dismissed the appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that once the ground of default under sub-clause (a) disappeared on account of compliance of sub-clause (b) of Section 13A of the Act, sub-clauses (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section 13 of the Act ceased to apply in a composite suit which was based also on the ground of default but that ground of default disappeared and has become non-existent in the eye of law on account of payment of rent after its adjudication under Section 13A of the Act.

Issues: Whether the striking out of defence under sub-sections (3) to (6) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, would continue to be effective even after the tenant has complied with the requirements of Section 13A of the Act and paid the rent within the time prescribed.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the entire pyramid of sub-clauses (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section 13 which provides for determination of arrears of rent, giving of time for payment of it requiring the tenant to pay the rent by fifteenth of the next month and consequent default in such compliance is based on and has been built on the bedrock of sub-clause 13(1)(a) which reads as under: "(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor-tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months." The amended Section 13A later introduced is as under : "13A. Special provisions relating to pending and other matters:- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act as it existed before the commencement of the Amending Ordinance or in any other law : (a) No Court shall in any proceeding on the date of commencement of the amending Ordinance pass any decree in favour of landlord for eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent if the tenant applies under clause (b) and pays to the landlord or deposits in Court; within such time such aggregate of the rent in arrears, interest thereon and full costs of the suit as may be directed by the Court under and in accordance with that clause." If in a given case on account of the application of Section 13A the effect of sub-clause 13(1)(a) disappears and which in the eye of law becomes non-existent for all intents and purposes then the entire pyramid falls flat on the floor. It is difficult to imagine a situation where a tenant can be deprived of the opportunity of leading evidence in defence for sub-letting or for other grounds even after the ground of default under sub-clause (a) disappeared on account of compliance of sub-clause (b) of Section 13A of the Act. In my considered view sub-clause (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section 13 of the Act ceased to apply in a composite suit which was based also on the ground of default but that ground of default disappeared and has become non-existent in the eye of law on account of payment of rent after its adjudication under Section 13A of the Act. I am of the opinion that sub-clauses (3), (4), (5) and (6) are subsidiary and sub-servient and corollary to sub-clause (a) of Section 13(1) and they are dependent and not independent. I am of the considered view that they have no separate existence of their own. Once the ground (a) disappears and becomes non-existent on account of legislative mandate of Section 13(a)(b) then an order passed under sub-clauses (3), (4), (5) and (6) will not adversely affect the rights of the tenant.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of both the lower Courts, and remanded the suit to the first appellate Court with the direction that treating the order of striking out the defence as ineffective, as the tenant has taken advantage of Section 13A of the Act the trial Court should decided the case according to law.