SHINGHAL, J.—Both these appeals relate to the suit of plaintiff-appellant Pyare Lal for the eviction of defendant Halka Singh and the recovery of arrears of rent, and will be disposed of together although they arise from two different judgments and decrees of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City.

2. The circumstances giving rise to these appeals are these : Defendant Halka Singh executed rent-note Ex. 1 on July 25, 1954, in favour of the plaintiff, according to which the tenancy was to commence from Jeth Sud 15, Smt. 2011 in respect of one kotha and one jharokha situated on the first floor of the plaintiffs house in Jaipur City. It was agreed between the parties that the rent payable for the premises would be Rs. 3/- per mensem. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the court of the learned Munsiff Jaipur City (East) on February 24, 1958, alleging that the defendant had paid only Rs. 27/- by way of rent up to Phalgun Sud 15 Smt. 2011 and that he had committed a default in respect of the rent payable for the period Chaitra Bad 1, Smt. 2011 to Maha Sudi 15, Smt. 2014. The plaintiff therefore sought to recover Rs. 108/- on account of arrears of rent for a period of 31 months, and a further sum of Rs. 6/- for the expenses incurred by him on electricity, water and other miscellaneous items, totalling to Rs. 114/-. He also prayed for the defendants eviction from the suit premises on account of the defaults. The defendant admitted the tenancy but pleaded that he had, as a matter of fact, paid Rs. 84/- on account of rent for a period of 28 months and not merely Rs. 27/- as alleged by the plaintiff. Further, he pleaded that only Rs. 45/- remained to be paid to the plaintiff for the period November 25, 1956 to February 24, 1958, and that it was the plaintiff who had dishonestly refused to accept its payment. The written statement of the defendant was filed on April 25, 1958, and there can be no doubt that he contested his liability to pay the arrears of rent claimed by the plaintiff and contested the plaintiffs assertion that he was a defaulter. The defendant also contested the suit on the ground that he was not liable to make any payment on account of electricity and water etc. for which the plaintiff had sought to recover a sum of Rs. 6/- in all. Further, he took the defence that no notice had at all been given to him and that the plaintiffs assertion in that respect was incorrect. Five issues were framed by the learned Munsiff covering the various points in dispute referred to above. Ultimately, he decreed the suit in full on July 31, 1959. The defendant preferred an appeal to the Senior Civil Judge. That appeal was allowed by the learned Judge on January 28, 1960 for the reason that he reached the conclusion that sec. 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was applicable to the case but was not applied by the trial Court. He therefore remanded the case and directed the Munsiff to comply with the aforesaid provision and to dismiss the plaintiffs claim for the defendants eviction if the defendant paid the arrears of rent within the time prescribed for the purpose. Appeal No. 259 of 1960 has been directed against that appellate judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge.

3. It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid order of remand, the Munsiff purported to make an order under sec. 13(4) of the Act on March 3, 1960, requiring the defendant to pay the sum of Rs. 222/- in all, within a period of 15 days. The defendant admittedly made the payment within that period and so the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit for the defendants eviction on March 19, 1960. An appeal was preferred against that judgment and decree as well, but it was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on August 16, 1961. It is against that judgment and decree that the plaintiff has preferred second appeal No. 712 of 1961.

4. It may be mentioned at the outset that there is no dispute between

Click Here to Read the rest of this document