The ground of default under section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, disappears once the tenant deposits the arrears of rent as determined by the court, and the tenant is not required to deposit rent month by month during the pendency of the appeal.

1. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 3rd December, 1985 passed by Distt. Judge, Tonk, affirming the decree of learned Munsif, Tonk, dated 27th July, 1982 and decreeing the suit for eviction and arrears of rent.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the appellant with the allegation that the appellant was a tenant of a shop belonging to the plaintiff-respondent, in Tonk at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. The shop was initially given on rent on 26.5.1962 and a rent note was executed for a sum of Rs. 8/- per month. Thereafter, the rent was increased to Rs. 10/- per month. Since the defendant-appellant has not paid the rent since more than three years, he is a defaulter. It was further asserted that the shop is required for the reasonable and bonafide need of the plaintiff as his elder son Javed lqbal was sitting idle after passing his B. Sc. examination and since he is not able to get any suitable employment. Since his son was conversant and had sufficient knowledge about the sale of electric goods, his son wanted to start a business of electrical goods in the suit shop and that the plaintiff had no other suitable and better shop than the suit shop. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant and it was submitted that he is not a defaulter and no rent was due to the plaintiff. It was further submitted that the suit shop is not required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff as his son Javed lqbal was doing the work of a contractor and has got a poultry farm and the plaintiff is a monied man and owns several shops in the city of Tonk, whereas the defendant has no other suitable accommodation except the suit shop where he carries on his business and earns his livelihood and the suit has been filed merely to increase the rent and that the greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if a decree for eviction is passed against him.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as six issues.

4. Arrears of rent were determined by he trial court under section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Act'), which was deposited by the defendant- appellant within time given by the court and he also continued to deposit the monthly rent within time during the pendency of the suit.

5. Since the tenant appellant had deposited the rent, the trial court while deciding the Issue No. I held that defendant was a defaulter but since he has deposited the rent, he has secured the protection of the Rent Control Act. The trial court decided Issue No. 5 also against the tenant. The trial court decided Issues No. 2, 3 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff and held that the suit shop was required reasonably and bonafidely by the landlord for his son Javed Igbal and the greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff rather than the defendant and ultimately, the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff only on the ground of personal necessity.

6. The tenant appellant preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Tonk who by his judgment dated December 3, 1985 reversed the finding of the trial court on the issues of bonafide necessity and comparative hardship, and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree of eviction on this ground. However, it found that since the tenant appellant failed to deposit the rent regularly during the pendency of the appeal, his defence was liable to be struck off. He also passed the decree for eviction against the defendant appellant, even though he had come to the conclusion that the suit property is not required reasonably and bonafide by the plaintiff landlord.

7. It is, against this judgment and decree that the present second appeal has been filed by the tenant.

8. The respondent landlord had filed a caveat and when the appeal came up for admission, the learned Single Judge hear