Dave, J.—This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment.

2. It is common ground between the parties that the appellant had leased out their shop to the respondent Bhomraj on 2lst May, 1949, and since then the respondent is in possession thereof. The shop is situated in Jain Market, Barmer and its boundaries are mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint The shop was originally given on a rent of Rs. 50/-per month, but the respondent approached the Rent Controller for fixation of standard rent. The Rent Controller ordered him to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month from 21st May, 1949 to 30th June, 1949. But from 1st July, 1949 the rent was reduced to Rs. 15/-per month.

3. The appellants case in the trial court was that even according to the reduced rent i. e. Rs. 15/- per month, the respondent ought to have paid Rs. 741/10/- to the appellants upto 31st March, 1953, but he actually paid only Rs. 481/1/- by that date. On 31st March, 1953 the appellants gave a notice to the respondent whereupon he sent Rs. 191 8/-on 15.4.53 towards rent upto the end of May, 1953. According to the appellants the rent for the next two months i. e. June and July, 1953 again fell in arrear. It was, therefore, prayed that a decree for Rs 30/- and ejectment may be passed against the respondent.

4. The respondent pleaded that on 15th April, 1953 he had paid not only rent upto that date but also future rent ending June, 1953 and that he was liable to pay only the rent for the month of July. It was urged that he never committee any default in paying the rent, but the appellants themselves delayed acceptance by saying that they would fake it after their revision application against the reduction of rent is decided by the Revenue Board. It was further pleaded that on 22nd August, 1953 he had paid to them Rs. 45/- as rent for the months of July, August and September, 1953, that he was thus not a defaulter in any way and the suit should be dismissed. On 5th September, 1953 the trial court found that the respondent was liable to pay to the plaintiffs-appellants Rs. 30/12/- for arrears of rent together with interest and costs of the suit and that he should deposite it in the court by 17.9.53. The respondent having deposited the money the suit was dismissed on 17.9.53. It was urged by the plaintiff that the respondent was liable to be ejected from the shop but the contention was set aside on the ground that the respondent had complied with the directions of the court as given under sec. 13 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, as amended in 1952. The plaintiffs went in appeal to the District Judge, Balotra. He did not agree with the interpretation of the trial court about sec. 13 sub-sec. (1) clause (a) and sub sec. (4) but the trial court decision was maintained on the ground that the plaintiffs had not mentioned in their plaint the due dates of the payment of the rent and the alleged defaults said to have been committed by the defendants. It was also point out that the plaintiffs had failed to mention in their plaint three defaults within a period of 18 months as required by sec. 13 sub-sec. (1) (a) of the said Act.

5. Learned advocate for the appellants has urged that the respondent had not paid to the appellants the rent for June and July 1953, that his previous three defaults of the like nature were apparent from the pleadings of the parties and therefore a decree for eviction should have been passed by the courts below and since they have committed an error in not passing such a decree it should now be passed by this Court.

6. Learned advocate for the respondent has urged on the other hand that even if it be assumed that the respondent had committed default in payment of rent on three occasions within a period of 18 months he paid the entire rent according to the determination of the trial court under sec. 13 sub-sec.(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act and therefore

Click Here to Read the rest of this document