The determination of rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, is mandatory in all suits for eviction on the ground of default, irrespective of whether it is the first suit for default or a second suit for default or whether protection under Section 13(6) or 13-A has been taken on a previous occasion.

1. - In a suit for eviction from a shop on the ground of default in payment of rent, and also other grounds, the trial court refused to determine rent due under Section 13 3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1150 (hereinafter called the Act) and gave a finding that the tenant had taken benefit under section 13-A of the Act on an earlier occasion and was not entitled to get this protection under section 13 (6) on a second occasion and as such it was not necessary to determine the rent under section 13 (3) of the Act. The lower appellate court namely, Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, by against order of Shri Manak Mohata, Distt. Judge, Sawai Madhopur dated 24-7-87 passed in C.M.A. No. 140/86. order dated 24 7.107 confirmed this order and against this the defendant petitioners have come up in this revision.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a tenant of the non-petitioner in a shop in Sawai Madhopur for quite a lung time. In 1961 the plaintiff brought a suit with the allegations that the rate of the rent of the shop was Rs. 20/ - per month and eviction was claimed an the basis of default in payment of rent alongwith other grounds The tenant took the plea that the rent of the shop was only Rs. 11/- per month. The trial court held that the rent was Rs. 20/ - per month and on the ground of default a decree for eviction was passed. The other grounds were decided against the plaintiff land lord. Thereafter the defendant preferred an appeal wherein it was held that the rent note at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month was a forged document and the rate was Rs. 11/- per month. The suit for eviction and arrears of rent was dismissed During the pendency of this appeal the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was amended with effect from 9.6.1965 and the petitioner moved an application under section 13-A of the Act upon which the rent was determined at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month and the plaintiff was allowed to withdraw the money on furnishing an undertaking that in case the defendant succeeds in the appeal and the rent was held to be Rs. 11/- per month the amount shall be refunded or adjusted towards the future rent. While deciding the appeal the rate of rent was held to be Rs. 11/-per month and the amount which was determined as payable on the application under section 13-A of the Act was ordered to be refunded. The plaintiff went in second appeal but this was dismissed.

3. According to the petitioner the first suit was dismissed as the rate of rent was Rs. 11/- per month and not Rs. 20/- and that the plaintiff had not been able to prove that the tenant committed a default in the payment of rent. According to him he was not given any protection as provided under Section 13 (7) or Section 13-A of the Act ? as it stood prior to amendment.

4. The second suit was filed by the land lord in the year 1952 on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as bonafide necessity and for causing damage to the property. The petitioner denied that he had committed a default in payment of rent and applied that the rent may be determined under Section 13(3) of the Act. For purpose of deciding this application the court framed an issue as to whether the defendant had obtained benefit by depositing rent under Section 13-A of the Act in previous suit and as such was not entitled to protection for a second time. The learned court relying on a Division Bench decision of this this Court in (1) M/s. Batibai & Co. Ltd. v. Govind Narain, 1981 RLW 411 , held that when an application under section 13-A was filed by the defendants in the previous suit, they would be treated us having obtained the benefit against default in the previous suit and no enquiry about it was to by made in the subsequent suit and there was no necessity to determine rent under section 13 (3) of the Act.

5. The appeal of the tenant before the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur was dismissed with the following obs