Honble BALI A, J. — This is defendant-tenants second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Nimbahera affirming the judgment and decree passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera dated 3.4.1987, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months on the date of filing of the suit.

(2). Facts necessary to be* noticed are that the appellants are tenant in the suit premises situated at Nimbahera since 1.3.1980 @ Rs. 75/- per month. On the date of filing of suit in 1982 the defendant had already defaulted in payment of rent of 19 months. In addition to Rs. 75/- as rent, Rs. 5/- per month as water charges where also to be paid. On 11.7.1983, the trial Court determined the amount of rent payable under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The defendant failed to deposit the amount so determined within the time allowed under Section 13(4) and delayed the payment. The plaintiff moved an application for striking out defence. The defendant moved an application for extension of time and condoning delay in making payment of the amount. By order dated 5.3.1984 the trial court found that the defendant has taken a false plea for delay in making payment of the amount. However, looking to the short delay in making the payment of the amount, inspite of its finding about the false plea taken by the defendants, the trial Court allowed the application conditionally. The Court directed that if the defendants pay Rs. 150/- as cost to the plaintiffs, the delay in making payment be condoned and defence may not be struck off. The defendants did not deposit the cost, but preferred an appeal against the order. By order dated 25.7.1986, the appellate Court refused to interfere and further made it clear that if the defendants had made the payment of the costs within three months of the order of the trial Court, the delay in making payment shall stand condoned by extending the time, otherwise, the defence of the defendant may be struck off. No amount had been deposited, nor after the order also the amount was deposited. As the defendant had not deposited the amount of cost on the condition of which only the extension of time in depositing the amount under Section 13(4) was granted, the trial Court proceeded with the case by striking out the defence and decreed the plaintiffs suit for eviction on 3.4.1987. The trial Court also found that the defendant has deposited the rent up to December, 1986 only in the Court, which he will be entitled to receive, and further decreed" for the arrears of rent from January, 1987, onwards.

(3). After the suit was decreed in April, 1987 the defendant preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. He deposited the amount of cost on 6.05.87. On 9.09.87 he applied for extension of time for deposit of cost under Section 148, C.P.C. in order to enable him to take advantage of the order passed by the lower Appellate Court on 25.7.86. That application was rejected by the Lower Appellate Court on 17.09.1992. Against which a revision was filed before this Court. The said revision No. 565/92 was dismissed on 3.11.1992 by holding that no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for the extension of the time and the order passed by the learned lower Court cannot be said to be in any manner unjust or improper.

(4). One fact may further be noticed in this connection that after decree was passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff-decree-holder levied execution of the decree. In the execution proceedings on 26.9.1987 the following order was passed: —

^^odqyk; QjhdSu gkftj gSA fMdzhnkj o egcwu esa jkthukek isk fd;k ;k ckn tk¡p rLdhn dj kkfey QkbZy fd;kA jkthukek ds vuqlkj ;j;wuke esa dksbZ jkfk vc cdk;k ugha gSA o fooknxzLr ifjlj fnuk¡d 31@12@87 rd [kkyh djuk r; gqvk gSA

vr% btjk; ekfQd jkthukek [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA i=koyh QSly kqekj gksA**

(5). Ultimately, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document