N.M. KASLIWAL, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar, dated 12th April, 1979 whereby he dismissed the applications dated 29th March, 1978 and 7th February, 1979, of the plaintiff petitioner for striking out the defence of the defendant-respondent against eviction.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment of a shop on the ground of default in the payment of rent for more than six months and reasonable and bona fide necessity in the court of Munsif Alwar on 9th December, 1972. The defendant non-petitioner filed an application under sec. 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. (hereinafter called the Act). The learned Munsif vide his order dated 10th February, 1973, determined the amount of rent and directed the defendant to deposit the same in court or to pay to the plaintiff within 10 days and to pay the subsequent rent month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. During the pendency of the suit the Act was amended by Amending Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 which was later on replaced by the Amending Act No. 14 of 1976, whereby a new Sec. 13A was inserted. The defendant moved an application under sec. 13A of the Amending Ordinance and the trial Court determined Rs. 59.25 p. to be deposited by the defendant. The defendant deposited the said amount in pursuance to the order of the Court. The learned trial Court thereafter dismissed the plaintiffs suit on 13th November, 1976. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Alwar which was transferred to the Additional Judge No. 1, Alwar for its disposal. During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff appellant moved an application on 29th March, 1978 under sec. 13(5) of the Act that in pursuance of the trial Courts order dated 10th February, 1973, the defendant having not deposited the rent by the 15th of each succeeding month, his defence is liable to be struck off. Another application was moved on 7th February, 1979 to the same effect. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed both the applications by his impugned order dated 12th April, 1979. Hence this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Additional District Judge had committed a material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in holding that sec. 13(5) of the Act connot be made applicable to the appellants. It is contended that the appeal is nothing but a continuation of the suit proceedings. Once an appeal is filed the whole suit is open before the appellate Court and all the provisions applicable to the suit are applicable to the appeal. The powers of the appellate Court were co-extensive with the trial Court as regards sec. 13(5) of the Act and the defendant having not deposited the subsequent rents month by month, his defence was liable to be struck off. Reliance is placed on Abdul Hamid vs. Hakeem Ahamd Ullah Khan (1). It is further argued that on the plain reading of the language of sec. 13(4) of the Act, the tenant is bound to deposit in court or to pay to the landlord month by month the monthly rent subsequent to its determination by the 15th of each succeeding month. The phrase in a suit or during the pendency of the suit is conspicuously absent in sec. 13(4) and thus the tenant was bound to pay the rent by the 15th of each succeeding month even during the pendency of first and second appeal as the case may be. It is also submitted that the learned Additional District Judge was wrong in holding that if a party had taken advantage under sec. 13A, he is discharged from the obligation of sec. 13(4). The two provisions should be reconciled and the provisions of sec. 13A do not in any manner, wipe out the liability of the tenant to pay the rent month by month as required under sec. 13(4). It is also contended that though the trial Court had ordered the defendant to deposit Rs. 59.25 p. but he actually deposited Rs. 59/- only as such he was not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document