BHARGAVA, J.—The petitioner in this case is a tenant who had rented shop No. 2 in Saraogi Building situated inside Kotegate in Bikaner City.

2. Non-petitioner is the landlord. The monthly rent of the shop is Rs. 14/-excluding electricity and other charges. Prior to the institution of the present suit on 22nd January, 1947, two more suits were filed by the landlord for rent and eviction. The first suit was dismissed because no notice to terminate the tenancy was served upon the tenant. In the second suit the tenant deposited all the arrears of rent etc. in compliance of the provisions of section 13A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) which had come into force during the pendency of those proceedings.

3. The present suit for eviction is based on the grounds mentioned in sec. 13 (1) (a), (c) (d) and (f) of the Act. It is alleged that the tenant had made default in payment of rent from 16-5-1966 to 2-1-1967. 14th February, 1967 was the date for settlement of issues and the summonses upon the defendants were served, upon their refusal, by affixing it on their house. On 23rd March, 1967, defendant Vishwanath Singh was represented by his counsel Shri Lakhpat Raj and on the next date i.e., 25th April, 1967 the same counsel represents the other defendant Darshan Singh. But on none of these dates arrears of rent with interest as provided under sec. 13(4) of the Act were deposited. On 3rd July, 1967, written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants, in paragraph 12 of which it was stated that they had committed no default in payment of rent. In fact they had first offered the rent to the plaintiff and upon his refusal a money order was sent to him, but that too was refused and so the defendants were compelled to deposit the amount in the court in the month of August 1966 under sec. 19A of the Act. They also submitted receipts regarding the deposits made under sec. 18A of the Act. It was stated that the plaintiff had not deliberately with-drawn the amount of rent deposited under sec. 19A of the Act. No effective proceedings took place in the suit till 16th April 1963 on which date the plaintiff submitted an application requesting the court to strike out the defence against eviction because the defendants had neither deposited the amount of arrears nor had paid monthly rent for the succeeding period.

4. The defendants contested this application and their plea was that they had deposited all the amount of rent due in the court under sec. 19A, in miscellaneous case No. 18 of 1966. It also appears that by way of precaution the tenant also deposited Rs. 425/-, in the court in which the suit was pending on 18-5-1968 and also continued to pay monthly rent till 2nd April, 1969. However both the courts below having found that neither the deposit of rent by the tenant in mis-cellanous case No. 18 of 1966 under sec. 19A nor the deposit made in the suit could be of any avail to the tenant because the arrears of rent were not paid on the first date of hearing and thereafter also the tenant did not pay rent month by month. Therefore, the trial court ordered the defence to be struck out. On appeal the learned District Judge also confirmed the same order.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the defence could not be struck out for non-compliance of sec. 13(4) because prior to the institution of the suit they had not committed default in payment of rent for six months. Sub-sec. 4 of the sec. 13 comes into play only when the suit for eviction is based on the ground set forth in clause(a) of sub-sec (1) of sec. 13 with or without any other grounds. It is pointed out that an 9-7-66 one months rent plus other charges amounting to Rs. 19 77 was sent by money order to the plaintiff, but he refused to take it and so for the purpose of clause(a) of sub-sec.(1) of sec. 13 that amount should be deemed to have been tendered to the landlord. Besides this on 4-81966 an amount of Rs. 35/-whi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document