Section 7(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is not applicable to a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent where the defendant-tenant has filed a counterclaim for fixation of standard rent under Section 6 of the Act.

1. - The defendant Prof. Krishna Datt Singh has filed this revision against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Udaipur dated 31-10-83 dismissing his appeal against the order of the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Udaipur dated 3-11-82 refusing the petitioner's application Under Section 7(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to us 'the Act').

2. The facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that the non-petitioner-plaintiff Pawan Kumar Sled a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant-petitioner Prof. Krishna Datt Singh on 19-1-78. Ejectment was sought only on the ground of default in payment of rent. The rate of rent alleged by the plaintiff was Rs. 250/- per month. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement on 18-4-78. He not only contested the ground of default but alleged that the rent was excessive. He also prayed for fixation of the standard rent under Section (sic)6 of the Act and thus filed a counter claim regarding fixation of the standard rent.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the necessary issues on 22-10-78. Before doing that on 19-8-78 the trial court provisionally determined the amount of rent to be deposited by the tenant under Section 13(3) of the Act. He also determined the provisional rent @ 250/ p.m. The defendant filed an appeal against this order but the same was dismissed by the appellate court on 4-2-80. Thereafter the1 matter proceeded on and the plaintiff produced his evidence and closed the same on 9-2-79. The Case was then fixed for the evidence of the defendant. The defendant, however, did not examine any witness till 24-11-81 and the court has directed on the proceeding date that the defendant should produce all his evidence on that date of hearing and no further opportunity shall be granted to him. However, despite this deaf direction the defendant did not produce any evidence on 24-11-81 but he moved an application under Section 7(3) of the Act praying that till his counter claim under Section 6 of the Act for fixation of standard rent is disposed of the proceedings in the plaintiff's suit may be stayed. The learned Civil Judge after hearing both the parties dismissed this application by his order dated 3-11-82. The defendant-petitioner filed an appeal against this order but without success and, therefore, the present revision.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Two contentions have been raised before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. His first contention is that since the amount of rent as provisionally determined by the court under Section 13(31 of the Act had been deposited by the defendant within prescribed time, the ground of ejectment pleaded in the plaint namely default did not survive and no decree for ejectment can now be passed against the defendant, therefore, the suit now remains merely a suit for arrears of rent and, therefore, Section 7(3) of the Act is clearly applicable. He further contended that when the defendant filed a counter claim and pays court fee, thereon that counter claim is treated as a cross suit and, therefore, when there are two suits one by the land-lord for recovery of arrears of rent and the other by the tenant for fixation of standard rent then proceedings in the suit for recovery of rent hive to be stayed under Section 7(3) of the Act. According to the learned Counsel the courts-below were wrong in refusing to apply Section 7(3) of the Act to the present proceedings on the wrong assumption that there were no two suits and the suit filed by the land-lord also could not be deemed to be a suit merely for recovery of arrears of rent. In order to support his contention that the suit of the land-lord now only remains a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, he placed reliance upon Shyamlal and Anr. v. Upbhokta Sahakari Samiti, AIR 1983 Rajasthan 133 and in order to show that the c