In a suit for eviction under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, where the tenant raises a dispute regarding the amount of rent payable, the provisions of Section 13(5) are attracted and the court is required to determine the amount of rent payable before requiring the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent.

1. S.C. Agrawal, J. - This is defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by respondent against the appellant for eviction from a shop. The said suit was based on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as the appellant having damaged the premises. The Munsif, Sikar decreed the suit on the basis of the ground of default in payment of rent. He, how ever, did not accept the case of the plaintiff respondents that the rent for the premises was Rs. 15/- per month, but found that the rent was Rs. 5/-per month as claimed by the appellant. The Munsif did not no accept the case of the plaintiff-respondents with regard to damage to the premises. On appeal, the District Judge, Sikar affirmed the decree of the Munsif. The District Judge was of the view that the suit in question was governed by the provisions contained in Sub-sections (4)(5) and (6) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act (here in after referred to as 'the Act') as they stood prior to the amendments introduced by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976) and that under the unamended provisions it was incumbent upon the appellant to have moved an application before the trial court under Section 13(5) of the Act disputing the amount of rent payable by him and in the absence of his moving such an application and further on account of his failure to deposit the arrears of rent under Section 13(4) of the Act. the defence of the appellant was liable to be struck out under Section 13(6) of the Act. The District Judge, therefore, upheld the order for striking out the defence of appellant and affirmed the decree for eviction passed by the trial court. Hence, this second appeal.

2. I have heard Shri A.K. Bajpai, the learned Counsel for the appellant. The respondents have chosen not to appear and contest the appeal.

3. Before dealing with the submissions urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it would be necessary to set out the relevant provisions contained in Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of the Act as they stood prior to the amendment introduced by the Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976. The said provisions read as under:

"13(4) In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that Sub-section, the tenant shall, on the first day of hearing or on or before such date as the court may, on an application made to if, 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 default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made together with interest on such amount calculated at rate of six percent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable upto the date of deposit and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.

13(5) If in any suit referred to in Sub-section (4), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the court shall determine, having regard the provisions of this Act, the amount to be deposited or paid to the landlord by the tenant, within fifteen days from the date of such order, in accordance with the provisions of Section (4).

13(6) If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in subsection (4) or Sub-section (5) on the date or within the time specified therein, the Court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit.

4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act were not attracted to the present case and the