The case clarified the requirements for eviction based on rent default under S. 13(1)(a) of the Act, emphasizing the need for continued rent payment and the consequences of striking off the defence against eviction.

JUDGMENT

1. - This is a second appeal filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 29-9-1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaur by which he dismissed the appeal of the appellants-defendants and upheld the judgment and decree dated 10-11-1982 passed by the learned Munsiff, Deedwana, by which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for eviction of the defendants -appellants on ground of default as envisaged in S. 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950'), was decreed.

2. This second appeal arises in the following circumstances :

The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff, Deedwana on 27-2-1980 under the provisions of the Act of 1950 stating that the defendants-appellants have taken houses mentioned in para 1 of the plaint on monthly rent of Rs. 20/- and a rent note was also executed by the defendants on 2-12-1972 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The defendants-appellants have committed default in payment of rent since 2-12-1972 and since they have committed default in payment of rent for more than six months, the plaintiff-respondent filed this suit seeking eviction of the defendants-appellants on ground of default as envisaged in S. 13(1)(a) of the Act of 1950. The plaintiff-respondent also claimed Rs. 1660/- as arrears of rent since 2-12-1972 up to the filing of the suit.
The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was contested by the defendants-appellants by filing a written statement on 20-1-1981, in which they have admitted tenancy with the plaintiff-respondent, but they have denied that any rent is due. Further, it is stated that the amount of rent for the period from Jan., 1978 to April, 1978 was sent by Money Order and prior to Jan., 1978, no amount of rent of plaintiff-respondent was due against them and the rent has been paid up to December, 1977 and some goods worth Rs. 584.35 were supplied by the defendants-appellants to the plaintiff-respondent and this amount should have also been adjusted against the payment of rent, but the same has not been done by the plaintiff-respondent and thus, they have not committed any default in payment of rent and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent be dismissed.The plaintiff-respondent filed a rejoinder on 7-3-1981.The learned Munsiff determined the provisional rent on 20-4-1981 in the following manner:-

(1) Upto the date of filing of the suit (he did not determine time-barred rent)	Rs. 720.00
(2) From the date of filing of the suit upto 2-4-1981	Rs. 280.00
(3) Interest @ 6%	Rs. 66.60
Total	Rs. 1066.60

The above determined amount to the tune of Rs. 1066.60 was paid by the defendants-appellants on 5-5-1981.Thereafter, the file went for framing of issues and denial of documents etc.On 23-7-1981, an application was moved by the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent under S. 13(5) of the Act of 1950 with the allegations that after the determination of rent on 20-4-1981 and after the payment of determined rent on 5-5-1981, the defendants-appellants have not paid the rent month to month as required by S. 13(4) of the Act of 1950 by the fifteenth of each month and thus, they have committed default in respect of three months. Hence, the defence of the defendants-appellants against eviction be struck off.The defendants-appellant submitted a reply to the application of the plaintiff-respondent dated 23-7-1981 on 21-10-1981 stating :

1. That since the suit was based only on the ground of default in payment of rent and after the payment of determined rent on 5-5-1981, the suit of eviction of defendants-appellants should have been ended.

2. That since the defendants-appellants have taken a plea that they have made the payment of arrears of rent by supplying goods worth Rs. 584.35, therefore, the point whether defendants-appellants have committed default or not should have been decided and thus, in absence of that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document