ORDER :

1. The case is listed in the ‘orders’ category, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and decided finally at this stage.

2. Briefly stated the facts arising in the present case are that a suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Division) & Judicial Magistrate I Class No.8, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) against the petitioners-defendants for eviction from the suit property. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent since 1966, who is sought to be evicted. During the pendency of the suit, on 15.05.2000, the rent of the suit premises was determined provisionally and the respondent-plaintiff was directed to supply details of the Bank Accounts so that the petitioners-defendants may deposit the rent in the said account. Since the particulars of the bank accounts were not supplied by the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioners defendants paid the rent due on each month to the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff till 30th April, 2007. In the month of May, 2007, the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff refused to accept the rent from the petitioners-defendants, therefore, the petitioners gave a notice dated 08.05.2007 to the respondent plaintiff for supplying the details of the bank account so that the rent due may be deposited. The said notice was not responded and replied to by the respondent-plaintiff.

3. Once again, on 05.06.2007, another notice was given by the petitioners-defendants with the same request i.e. to supply the account details for deposition of the rent due. The same was also not responded or replied to. The petitioners-defendants, thereafter, sent Money Order of Rs. 60/- of the rent due from 01.05.2007 to 31.04.2008 but the same too was refused and returned by the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioners-defendants again sent a Money Order for the period commencing from 01.05.2008 to 30.04.2009 but the same was also refused and returned by the respondent-plaintiff. In these circumstances, when the respondent-plaintiff did not accept the rent due, an application for deposition of rent was made before the trial court on 14.12.2007.

4. The respondent-plaintiff also preferred an application under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

5. The aforesaid applications were decided by the trial court vide order dated 01.02.2010, whereby, the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 13(5) of the Act was allowed and the defence of the petitioners-defendants was ordered to be struck off. It was held by the learned trial court that since the defence of the petitioners-defendants was already struck off, no orders are required to be passed on the application preferred by the petitioners-defendants for depositing the rent due before the trial court.

6. The petitioners-defendants assailed the validity of this order by filing an appeal before the Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which was dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 05.03.2011.

7. Aggrieved of the orders passed by the courts below dated 01.02.2010 and 05.03.2011, the present writ petition has been preferred.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned courts below committed grave error while allowing the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 13(5) of the Act by resorting to the extreme steps striking out the defence, which virtually means that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the petitioners.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by the learned trial court on 05.05.2000 determining the provisional rent, the petitioner complied with the same for seven years as the rent due was deposited by him with the counsel for the respondent for each month, however, when the counsel for the respondent refused to accept the rent due, all possible effo