The deposit of arrears of rent under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 extinguishes the ground of default, making the provisions of Sections 13(3), 13(4), 13(5), and 13(6) of the Act inapplicable and preventing the striking off of the defendant's defence.

1. - The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.

2. The plaintiff-respondent Poonam Chand, filed a suit on 27-3-1973 for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 234/-, and eviction on the ground of default, denial of title and personal necessity. Notice was issued for appearance of the defendant for 11-5-1973. On 11-5-1973, the defendant moved an application under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, here in after referred to as the 'Act' submitting that the has not committed any default in payment of rent, and further that he used to go to the plaintiff for paying rent but the plaintiff used to avoid accepting rent, by money order which was also refused and further that he was willing to deposit arrears of rent upto date along with interest amounting to Rs. 310.25 for which necessary orders may be passed. The tender form was also submitted along with the application. The application was contested by filing reply but however, the court passed order on 11-5-1973 itself that the tenant may deposit rent, subject to objection, as a result thereof, the tenant deposited the sum of Rs. 310.25 on 25-5-1973. The court did not determine the arrears of rent and the application was fixed for arguments, however, no orders on the said application were passed, nor the amount of rent as claimed in the suit and disputed by the defendant in the written statement was determined till final decision of the suit itself nor any directions were given to the defendant tenant to deposit the arrears of rent and for depositing the monthly rent in future. However, the defendant continued to deposit the rent month by month and plaintiff also withdrew the same from time to time.

3. The plaintiff filed an application on 3-12-1979 that the defendant has not deposited the future rent in time and as such, he was a defaulter, therefore, his defence should be struck off. The defendant filed reply and also examined the Nazir in support of his case as also produced certificate from the Treasury, Jhalawar. The court vide its order dated 28-7-1981 found that the defendant did not deposit the rent for the month of May, 1977, May 1978, November 1978 and May, 1979 in time and therefore, he was a defaulter and his defence was struck off.

4. The defendant preferred an appeal against the said order. Learned Civil Judge, Jhalawar vide his order dated 20-1-1982 held that the defendant did not deposit the rent of November, 1978 only and therefore, he also held that the defendant was a defaulter and his defence was rightly struck off and ultimately, he dismissed the appeal. Against that order, S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 194/82 Moolchand v. Poonam Chand has been filed and the same is being disposed of by this common order.

5. The trial court without even awaiting for the decision of the appeal filed against the order dated 28-7-1981, striking out the defence of the defendant, proceeded with the case, and after recording evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of denial of title and default but rejected the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity and decreed the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 235.30p.

6. Defendant appellant preferred an appeal and the plaintiff filed cross-objections. Learned Civil Judge Jhalawar, dismissed the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff and agreed with the finding of the trial court that the suit premises were not required reasonably and bonafide, whereas it also accepted the appeal in part in so far as it held that the plaintiff is not entitled to decree of eviction on the ground of denial of title but ultimately, dismissed the appeal as it also held that the defendant-appellant was a defaulter in payment of rent and therefore, the trial court was justified in passing a decree for eviction. It is against this judgment and decree that the present second appeal has been filed.

7. Respondent put in appearance and therefore,