S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—These two revision petitions by tenants against the same landlord-non-petitioner raise identical questions and as they were heard together, it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. S.B. Civil Revision No. 9 of 1981 is by the tenant Ratanlal against the order dated October 24,1981 passed by the District Judge, Merta in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 1977, by which, he dismissed the appeal against the order dated February 4, 1977 of the Munsif, Nawa, who struck out the petitioners defence against eviction.

2. A show cause notice was issued to the non-petitioner as to why the revision petition be not admitted. The record was sent for on April 2, 1981. The Court ordered that it would be proper that the revision petition may be heard along with S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 18 of 1981: Jethmal Vs. Ramlal. On May 4, 1981, it was ordered that this revision petition be listed for admission along with S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 18 of 1981. That revision has been listed today.

3. Learned counsel for the parties stated that arguments may be heard and this revision petition may finally be disposed of.

4. I may first notice the facts giving rise to S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 9 of 1981: Ratanlal vs. Ramlal. The plaintiff-non-petititoner instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner in the court of Munsif, Nawa on January 15,1976. The plaintiff sought ejectment on the ground mentioned in s. 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) (which will hereinafter, for the sake of bravity, be referred to as the Act), i.e., on the ground of defaults in payment of monthly rent. After the service of the notice the defendant-petitioner submitted an application under sec. 13(3) of the Act for determination of the amount to be deposited by him. The plaintiff submitted his reply on April 13, 1976. On Aug. 2, 1976, the trial court determined the amount of rent and interest and directed the defendant to deposit it in court by Aug. 17, 1976. On Aug. 17, 1976, an application was moved on behalf of the defendant that time may be granted to him to deposit the rent for the period Oct. 1, 1973 to October 31, 1974. The Court granted the time. On September 16,1976, an application signed by the defendant and his counsel, was filed praying that one months time may further be allowed for depositing the amount in pursuance of the order dated August 2, 1976. A reply was filed on that very day. Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that he has no objection if one months time is granted for depositing the amount. On October 15,1976, the defendant filed an application along with the tender praying therein that period for depositing the rent may be extended and an order may be made for depositing the amount upto October 25, 1976, On October 25, 1976, a sum of Rs. 980/- was paid to the counsel for the plaintiff and it was accepted by him. On December 16, 1976, an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff for striking out the defence against eviction on the ground that the defendant has committed default in payment of the rent for the months of August and Sept. 1976 inasmuch as the rent for the month of August was not deposited by Sept. 15, 1976 and the rent for the month of September, 1976 was not deposited by October 15, 1976 and, therefore, defence against eviction may be struck out under S. 13 (5) of the Act. The application was contested by the defendant by filing the reply on January 10, 1977. The learned Munsif, by his order dated February 4, 1977, held that the defendant has committed default in payment of monthly rent and, therefore, his defence against eviction is struck out. On appeal, the learned District Judge, concurred with the order of learned Munsif and dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated October 24, 1980. Hence S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 9 of 1981.

SB. Civil Revision No. 18 of 1981.

5. This revision is by defenda

Click Here to Read the rest of this document