1. Non-payment of rent for six months is a necessary condition for eviction under sec.13(1)(a) of the Act, even if the defense is struck off under sec.13(5). 2. Denial of title, even if raised for the first time during the trial, can be a ground for eviction under sec.13(1)(f) of the Act.

VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. This Civil Second Appeal under sec.100 CPC has been filed against judgment & decree dated 22.03.1999 in Civil Appeal No. 03/1996 (Banshi Lal v. LRs of Ranamal) passed by Additional District Judge, Barmer, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 23.12.1995 passed by Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Barmer in CO No. 22/1983 (Ranamal v. Messers Pokardas Rikhabdas) was affirmed.

2. Briefly stated, deceased Rana Mal, who is now represented by respondents, filed a suit for eviction and for arrears of rent for use & occupation against the defendant-appellant on 04.05.1977, on the grounds of arrears of rent and for ejectment. Later the suit was amended on 17.10.1977 and a new para 5 was added and grounds under sec.13(1)(f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 (herein after ‘the Act of 1950’) were also added.

3. It was averred that the premises (shop) was given on rent on 03.11.1972 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month and a rent deed was executed for 11 months. The shop was given on rent from Kartik Krishna triyodashi Samvat 2029 to Aswin Krishna Baras Samvat 2030. It was also averred that even after expiry of period, the suit shop was not vacated and the tenant continued in occupation and because of use & occupation, damages were being paid. It was further averred that damages for use & occupation were given up to 12.12.1975 and after Kartik Badi 13 Samvat 2032 no rent was paid and damages being not paid, therefore, the tenant has become defaulter. It has also been averred that because of use & occupation of the suit shop, rent paid up to 12.12.1975 and rent being not paid after that date, the plaintiff is entitled for Rs. 2250/- at the rate of Rs. 125/-. It was also averred that the defendant has renounced the character of tenant and the plaintiff has not waived the character of renouncement.

4. The defendant filed written statement and alleged that the suit shop was taken on rent for 11 months. It was further alleged that on expiry of 11 months, suit shop was vacated and possession was handed over back. It was further submitted that no rent was given on 22.12.1975 as suit shop was not in his possession. He is not defaulter and the plaintiff is not entitled for Rs. 2250/-.

5. In additional pleas, the defendant averred that on expiry of 11 months in Samvat 2030 Asoj Bad 12, vacant shop was handed over. It was further averred that the shop, which was earlier with defendant, plaintiff gave it on rent to Ashok Kumar & Company. On 22.12.1975 rent was received by the plaintiff from Ashok Kumar & Company by cheque of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur. It was also averred that before this also, by Cheque No. 33023 dated 28.11.1974 of Bank of Rajasthan, the plaintiff received Rs. 1000/- as rent.

6. On the basis of pleadings of parties, four issues were framed. After trial, the trial court by its judgment & decree dated 23.12.1995 decreed the suit and decided all issues against defendant. Being aggrieved by the judgment & decree dated 23.12.1995, defendant filed a First Appeal. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 22.03.1999 and affirmed the judgment & decree passed by the trial court. Aggrieved of the judgment & decree dated 22.03.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, the appellant-defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

7. This Court while admitting the appeal framed following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether, if there was any clerical mistake in the decree disclosing name of Ranmal, deceased instead of his legal representatives, the decree was required to be amended as contemplated under Sec.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the decree is not so amended, what would be its effect?

2. Whether in the present case, admission of a co-plaintiff in writing is binding to other co-plaintiffs and both the courts below have committed substantial error of law in refusing to extend its effect on remai