JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a revision application by the defendants against an order of Munsif, Hindaun, striking out their defence under sec. 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950, which was confirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Gangapur City.

2. Smt. Chandravati Devi, plaintiff, is the landlord of a shop situated at Hindaun and Mangalram and Kedar Nath, defendants, are the tenants of the shop. The monthly rent of the shop is Rs. 10/-. In addition to it the tenants have to pay a shop-tax at 50 Paisa per month. The tenancy is monthly in accordance with the Hindi calendar. Rent falls due on Sudi 1 of every Hindi month. The present suit was instituted on 18-9-67 for the recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent due for six months under sec. 13(l)(a). According to the plaintiff rent was paid by the defendants upto 16th July 1966. Rent for 12 months from 16-7-66 to 8-7-67 was neither paid nor tendered to the plaintiff. It was admitted in the plaint that a notice was served by the defendants in which it was stated that rent for six months from 19-7-66 to 11-1-67 had been deposited on 25-1-67 under sec. 19 A. The plaintiff sent a notice terminating the tenancy to the defendants on 31-7-67. This notice was served on them on 2-8-67. Rent for 14 months amounting to Rs. 147/- including shop tax was claimed in the suit and it was prayed that the defendants be evicted from the shop on the ground of default under sec. 13(l)(a).

3. Summonses for settlement of issues were sent for service on the defendants for 20-10-67. On the latter date Mangalram defendant was present. Kedar Nath did not appear and he had not been served. The next date fixed in the case was 4-12-67. On that date Kedar Nath also appeared. 23rd December 1967 was fixed for filing written statements. On the latter date on the prayer of the defendants time was granted to them upto 4-1-68 to file a written statement. On 4-1-68 the defendants filed their written statement. In this it was alleged that rent from 19-7-66 to 11-1-67 was tendered but was not accepted and was deposited in court under sec. 19 A on 25-1-67. Further it was alleged that rent from 12.1-67 to 8-7-67 was also tendered but was not accepted and was deposited under sec. 19 A on 29-8-67 It was also stated in the written statement that the defendants were willing to pay forthwith rent which fell due after 8-7-67.

4. On the date of filing this written statement namely 4-1-68 the defendants also filed an application in which it was stated that rent upto 8-7-67 had been deposited in court and it was prayed that the plaintiff may be got paid rent which fell due after 8-7-67 in the presence of the Court and if he was not willing to accept it then it may be got deposited in court.

5. Rent for 6 months from 9-7-67 to 1-1-68 was deposited by the defendants on 18 8-68. Rent for the following 3 months was paid on 21-3-68 after the plaintiff had moved an application stating that rent for the months 2-1-68 to 31-8-68, 1-2-68 to 29-2-68 had not been paid within 15 days.

6. On 22-2-68 issues were framed in the case. On that very day the plaintiff filed an application praying that the defence of the defendants may be struck out u/S. 13(6) as they had neither paid the arrears of rent due on the first day of hearing nor paid or deposited the rent thereafter falling due month by month by the 15th. of each succeeding month. On 21-3-68 a further application was filed for striking out the defence of the defendants in which it was pointed out that rent for the months from 2-1-68 to 31-1-68, and 1-2-68 to 29-2-68 had not been deposited within 15 days of its falling due. After hearing the parties the learned Munsif struck out the defence of the defendants u/s. 13(6). This order was confirmed on appeal.

7. Two contentions were put forward on behalf of the defendants before the trial court. One was that rent for the Hindi month beginning from 2-1-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document