M.C. JAIN, J.—These second appeals have filed by the defendants against the judgments and decrees of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated 26.9.86 and 7.2.87 respectively by which he dismissed them and confirmed the judgments of the Additional Munsif No. 1, Bikaner, decreeing the suits for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. The questions involved in both the appeals are similar and as such they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts of the case giving rise to Appeal No. 151 of 1986 may be summarised thus. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for the recovery of rent and mesne profits with the allegations, in short, that the defendant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent, in previous suit No. 50 of 1975, he was given benefits under Sec. 13(4), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (hereinafter to be called as the Act), accordingly, it was dismissed and he has again defaulted in payment of rent for more than 6 months, i.e., from 1st September, 1978. The defendant admitted in his written statement that he is in occupation and possession of the suit premises on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 30/-, and in the previous suit No. 50 of 1975, he had been gi\en benefits under Sec. 13(4). The remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. He has averred that he has not committed any default in payment of rent, on the refusal of his money orders of rent he deposited their amounts in the court, no default has been committed and the suit deserves to be dismissed. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties which was produced, the trial court held that the defendant had committed defaults in payment of rent of eight months, i.e., October, November and December, 1978 and January, February, April, August and September, 1979 and accordingly decreed the suit for ejectment. This was confirmed by the learned District Judge in appeal, as said above.

3. The facts of the other case giving rise to the Appeal No. 29 of 1987 are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-appellant with the allegations, in short, that the defendant committed default in payment of rent. Suit No. 65/74 was filed for ejectment on this ground, he was given benefits under Sec. 13-A of the Act, suit for ejectment was dismissed and he has again defaulted in payment of rent for more than six months. The defendant admitted in his written — statement that he is in occupation and possession of the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs. 56/-. Suit No. 85/74 was filed for ejectment and it was dismissed. The remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence which was produced, the learned trial court held that in the previous Suit No 64/74, the defendant had been given benefits under Sec. 13-A of the Act, he has again committed default in payment of rent of 9 months, i.e., November and December, 1975, January, February, March, May, June & July, 1976 and April, 1977, and accordingly decreed the suit for ejectment. This was confirmed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner, as said above.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is well proved from the findings recorded by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned lower appellate court that no amount of rent was due for six months, the provisions of Sec. 13(l)(a) of the Act are not attracted in any case, mere defaults in payment of rent of different six or more months do not attract the provisions of this clause and this clause simply requires that an amount of rent should remain due for six or more months. He further contended that the defendants validly deposited the amounts of rent in the court after the money orders were refused by the respondents, it was not necessary for them to send written notices under Sec. 19-A(3)(b) of the Act requiring their landlords to specify the bank and the account

Click Here to Read the rest of this document