GUPTA, J.—This special appeal by the tenant- defendant is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated August 26. 1975. affi ming the judgment and decree of the learned Additioml District Judge No 2, Jaipur, dated September 21, 1974, by which he directed the eviction of the appellant.

2. The defendant-appellant is a tenant on a rental of Rs. 425/- per mensem. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the property in dispute from the previous owner on November 7, 1968. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide need as well as on the ground that he defendant-appellant was in arrears of rent and was a defaulter. The trial rout, by his judgment dated November 21, 1974 decreed the plaintiffs suit and directed the eviction of the appellant.The defendant tiled the first appeal before this court. The following points were argued,—

(1) That the suit was art maintainable as it was filed against M/s General Auto agencies which was not a juristic person.

(2) That the defendant could not be declared as a defaulter after depositing Rs. 12, 225/-as arrears of rent for 27months on the first date of hearing after he was properly served with the correct copy of the plaint by the court.

(3) That the notice being defective did not lay a valid foundation for filing the suit for ejectment and, therefore, the suit should have been dismissed on that ground, and.

(4) That the plaintiff failed to prove his bonafide and reasonable necessity for getting a decree of eviction in his favour.

3. The learned Single Judge held that the notice was valid. The learned Single Judge also held that the suit was properly filed against the appellant and decided both these points against the appellant. Mr. G.L. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, has not challenged the said findings and, therefore, it is not necessary to go into these.

4. The learned Single Judge has also held that the plaintiff required the premises bonafide for his personal need. The learned Single Judge has also held that the defendant did not deposit the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing and, therefore, was liable to be evicted. Mr. Agrawal has addressed arguments to us only on these two points. We are, therefore, concerned with points Nos. 2 and 4 above, in this appeal.

Point No. 2. The admitted facts are that the summons was issued to the appellant-tenant for April 21, 1971. The summons was served and the defendant appeared in the court, but stated that a complete copy of the plaint was not sent along with the summons. On that, the Court ordered that as the counsel for the defendant says that a complete copy of the plaint has not been received by his client, the learned counsel for the plaintiff is directed to supply a copy of the plaint within three days and directed the case to be listed for May 21, 1971 for filing: of the written statement. The copy of the plaint was supplied to the defendant. It is also agreed that on May 21, 1971, the full arrears of rent along with interest were deposited by the appellant. The eviction, however, was sought by the plaintiff on the ground that the first date of hearing was April 91, 1971 and the deposit of the arrears of rent etc. by the defendant on May 21, 1971 cannot avail the appellant so as to avoid the eviction.

5. Sec. 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), inter alia, provides that,—

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pas any decree, or make any order, in favour of the 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 six months........."

Sec. 13(4) of the Act laws down that—

"(4). In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document