Chhangani, J.—This is a defendants second appeal against the appellate judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bharatpur dated 28th February, 1959 confirming the decree of the Munsif, Bayana decreeing the plaintiff-respondents suit for ejectment and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 408/-.

2. As the controversy between the parties is very narrow, only a few facts need be stated :

The plaintiff instituted a suit on 8th July, 1957 in the court of the Munsif, Bayana and claimed ejectment of the defendant from the shop and arrears of rent for a period of 31 months. The ejectment was claimed on two grounds—

(l) That, the shop was bona fide and reasonably required for the plaintiffs use.

(2) That, the defendant had defaulted more than three times during a period of 18 months and is not entitled to protection in view of second proviso to sec. 13(l)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act XVII of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The defendant contested the suit and traversed all the allegations. With regard to the arrears of rent, he admitted that the amount no doubt became due, yet he denied his liability to pay the amount. His case was that with the consent of the plaintiff and on an understanding given by the plaintiff, he spent Rs. 351/8/- in constructing a tin shed and improving the shop, and that he was entitled to a deduction of this amount from the amount claimed by the plaintiff. He admitted the liability for an amount of Rs. 56/-which he said, he was prepared to give. In fact, he had despatched a money order for arranging payment of this amount, but the same money-order was refused. Both the courts have concurrently arrived at the following findings —

(1) The plaintiffs case that the shop was bona fide and reasonably required by the plaintiff is not proved,

(2) That, the defendant is a defaulter and his claim for an amount of Rs. 351/8/-is not substantiated.

4. On these findings, the courts below have held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for ejectment and the defendant was not entitled to any protection against eviction in view of second proviso to sec.l3(l)(a) of the Act.

5. In this second appeal, Mr. Gupta has pointed out and very rightly that in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Daulatram vs. Lakhumal (1). the decree of the courts below cannot be supported on the ground relied by the courts below. In the Full Bench case, it was held that a tenant would be entitled to the protection provided by sec. 13(4) even if he has made the defaults mentioned in the second proviso to S. 13(1) as it stood prior to Amendment Act no XXIV of 1958.

6. Mr. Rastogi appearing for the respondent has conceded this position. He has however, urged that even the protection afforded by sec. 13(4) of the Act is not available on account of the defendant having contested his liability to pay the amount of rent due to him and, therefore, the question which has to be considered is whether the defendant appellant can claim protection against eviction under sec. 13(4) of the Act.

7. This question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Shambhoo Ram vs. Mangal Singh (2) and the learned Judges summed up the law as follows:—

"Therefore, as soon as the tenant contests the suit on any ground whatsoever except as to the matter of arithmetical calculation of the amount of rent due up to date or interest or costs, he cannot claim the benefit of sub-sec. (4).

In other words, a tenant having denied his liability to pay rent and having joined a contest on that point, cannot subsequently claim the protection of Sec. 13(4) of the Act.

8. This view was followed by me sitting with my lord the Chief Justice in Motiram vs. Parmanand (3), and has been further followed in Vishambharlal vs. Mohanlal (4) by Modi, J.

9. In my opinion, it should now be treated as a settled law that a defendant tenant raising any kind of contest other than about arithmetical calculation, cannot claim protection aga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document