Wanchoo, C.J.—These are two connected revisions arising out of two suits for ejectment filed by Shambhooram and Sampatram against Mangal Singh in one case (43) and Yadram in the other (54). They have been referred to a Division Bench for disposal in view of the coflict between three Single Judge decisions of this Court, namely Daulatram vs. Bhomraj (1), Girraj Prasad vs. Shrimati Dhankan Bai (2), Suraj Narain vs. Khawas Balabux (3).

2. As common questions of law relating to the interpretation of sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (No. XVII of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act) arise in them, I purpose to dispose them of by one judgment.

3. The facts of the two cases, which are relevant for present purposes, are there. Shambhooram and Sampatram are landlords and Mangal Singh and Yadram are their tenants. The tenants had taken their houses on rent originally at Rs. 6/- per mensem and executed rent notes in that connection. Before the 1st of April, 1951 the landlords gave notice to the tenants for enhancement of rent and consequently the tenants agreed to enhance the rent to Rs. 7/8/- per mensem from the 1st of April, 1951, They paid rent at this enhanced rate for a few months. Thereafter there was some dispute and they stopped paying rent. Consequently, the landlords gave notice on the 13th of August, 1953 to the tenants to pay the arrears of rent and also asked them to vacate the premises by the 31st of August, 1953 in view of their continued failure to pay the rent.

4. The suits were filed in April, 1954. The tenants contested the suit. They admitted that rent had been originally settled at Rs. 6/- per month and had been enhanced to Rs 7/8/- per month from the 1st of April, 1951. But their contention was that this enhancement was subject to restoration of certain amenities which the landlords had stopped and also subject to the landlords white washing and repairing the houses I but when the landlords did not do so, the tenants refused to pay them at Rs. 7/8/- per month. They were always prepared to pay at Rs. 6/- per month, but the landlords refused to accept the rent at this rate.

5. Two issues arose in these case3. The first was whether the enhancement was conditional on restoration of certain amenities Both the courts below have come to the finding that this was not so and the arrears of rent have been decreed at Rs. 7/3/ per month. The second issue related to whether the tenants had become defaulters and were entitled to the benefit of sec. 13 (4) of the Act. Bnsi the courts have given the benefit of sec. 13 (4) to the tenants and have dismissed the suit so far as it related to ejectment. The present revisions challenge the view of the courts below that the tenants were entitled to the benefit of sec. 13 (4). The only point, therefore, which falls for consideration in these cases is the interpretation of the relevant provisions of sec. 13 and whether the tenants are entitled to the benefit of sec. 13 (4).

6. The relevant provisions of sec. 13, with which we are concerned, are to:—

"13 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant, so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied—

(a) That the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for any two months.

(i) provided that no eviction shall be ordered under this clause if the tenant pays in Court on the first day of hearing such arrears of rent together with the costs of the suit.

(ii) Provided further that the tenant shall not be entitled to the benefit of protection against eviction under this clause if he had made a like default in payment of rent on three occasions within a period of eighteen months ;

13 (4). In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-sec. (1),

Click Here to Read the rest of this document