MAHENDRA BHUSHAN, J.—An important question of law involved in this revision petition is as to whether in a suit filed only for eviction under Sec. 13 (l)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Court is required to determine the rent and interest under Section 13(3) of the Act ?

2. The petitioner purchased the suit property from the previous owner Smt. Kastoori Bai wife of B.L. Sharma under a registered sale-deed dt. the 26th September, 1977. Prior to the purchase, in the suit property the non-petitioner was a tenant allegedly on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. After the purchase of the property the petitioner filed a suit only on the ground of default under Section 13 (!) (a) of the Act that the non-petitioner has neither paid nor tendered the rent due for six months. The learned trial Court by its order dated the 20th March 1979 determined the rent and interest amounting to Rs. 4914/- and directed the non-petitioner to pay to the land lord or deposit this amount in the Court within a period of one month. It also directed that the monthly rent to fall due shall also be paid by the non-petitioner to the petitioner by 15th of succeeding month. The non petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, who accepted the same and set aside the order of the learned Munsiff passed under Sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 13 of the Act, and directed him to provisionally determine the rent under Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 13 as per directions contained in his order.

3. I am of the opinion that the approach of the learned District Judge that unless in a suit for eviction based on a ground as contained in Section 13(1) (a) of the Act, the arrears of rent are also claimed upto the date of the suit, the amount of rent cannot be determined under Sec. 13(3) of the Act for the period prior to the suit, is not in accordance with law. The learned District Judge has also observed by referring to O. 2 R. 2 C.P.C. that unless the arrears are claimed, the amount prior to the filing of the suit cannot be determined and he has drawn analogy from the proviso to Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 13 with regard to time-barred rent. A look at Section 13 (3) of the Act will make it clear that in the suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 13 of the Act is filed, it is the duty of the Court to provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in Court or to be paid to the land lord by the tenant. The determination of the amount is to be confined to the amount of rent which was not barred by limitation on the date of filing of the suit. It can hardly be disputed that a suit purely for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 13 of the Act is maintainable and it is not necessary in such a suit also to claim arrears of rent on which the alleged default is based. Under O. 2 R. 2 (2) C.P.C. where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he is debarred afterwards to sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. The only effeet of the plaintiff suing purely for eviction under Section 13 (l)(a) of the Act will be that he cannot later on file a suit for arrears of rent for which he omits to sue in such a suit. That apart the law can be said to be settled if at a particular stage Rent Act provides for determination of rent and its payment in a suit for eviction then even such rent the recovery of which has become time barred on the date of the suit, has to be determined in accordance with relevant provisions of law. In Ram Nandan Sharma vs. Mt. Maya Devi (1), a Full Bench of Patna High Court, dealing with section 11 A of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (3 of 1947) has held that while determining the rent the provisions of O. 2 R. 2 C.P.C. are not attracted. In Khadi Gram Udhyog Trust vs. Shri Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir, Sarasiya Ghat, Kanpur(2) thei

Click Here to Read the rest of this document