Honble KEJRIWAL, J. –The plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner on several grounds inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner committed default in the payment of rent. Notice of suit was served on the petitioner. He put his appearance on 17.12.1994. On his request the case was adjourned to 7.3.1995. On 7.3.1995, the petitioner filed an application mentioning therein that he has already deposited rent upto Dec., 1994, under section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the `Act). He wants to deposit the rent for the months of January & February, 1995. He may be permitted to deposit the rent in the Court.

(2). The trial Court vide its order dated 7.5.1993, rejected the said application of the defendant-petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. The learned Addl. District Judge No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his order dated 24.4.1995, rejected the said appeal. Under such circumstances the petitioner has filed the present revision, challenging the aforesaid orders.

(3). The case was listed on 4.9.1995. This Court framed the following two questions and directed the office to publish these two questions in the daily cause list so that the members of the Bar, who wants to address the Court, may make their submissions :–

^^1- fdjk;k ,oa csn[kyh ds nkok esa /kkjk 13¼3½ jkt- ifjlj ¼fdjk;k fu;a=.k ,oa fu"dklu½ vf/kfu;e 1950 ds rgr fdjk;k fu/kkZj.k esa dkQh le; yxrk gS vkSj bl vkk; dk vknsk gks tkus ds ckn fdjk;snkj /kkjk 13¼4½ jkt- ifjlj ¼fdjk;k fu;a=.k ,oa fu"dklu½ vf/kfu;e 1950 ds rgr fdjk;k tek djkrk gS] ftlesa dkQh le; yxrk gSA vr% bl chp fdjk;snkj fdjk;k dc vksj dgka tek djkosaA

2- D;k /kkjk 13¼3½ jktLFkku ifjlj ¼fdjk;k fu;a=.k ,oa fu"dklu½ vf/kfu;e 1950 ds rgr fdjk;s dk fu/kkZj.k tokcnkok izLrqr gksus ls igys fd;k tk ldrk gS\

counsel for the petitioner submits that under Order 24 Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, a defendant-tenant has right to deposit the amount claimed by the plaintiff in his suit in the Court. In the present case the plaintiffs-non-petitioners have prayed that a decree of rent from the date of suit till the date of decree be passed against the petitioner. In such circumstances the trial court had no jurisdiction to reject the prayer of the petitioner to deposit the rent claimed by the plaintiffs non-petitioners in the suit. He further submits that the lower appellate court further erred in holding that the rent can be determined under Section 13(3) of the Act without filing a written statement. He submits that under -section 13(3) of the Act, rent can be determined only after filing the written statement and not prior to that. He further submits that the lower courts did not consider these aspects of the case and rejected the application in arbitrary way and in case the orders of the lower courts are allowed to stand, they would cause irreparable injury to the defendant- petitioner. He prayed that the orders passed by the lower courts be set-aside and the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed.

(4). Mr. M.M. Ranjan and Mr. R.K. Agarwal interveners also supported the counsel for the petitioner. But their submission is that notice of deposit must go to the plaintiffs-non-petitioners, otherwise the plaintiffs-non-petitioners will suffer interest on the amount deposited by the defendant petitioner.

(5). On the other hand counsel for the plaintiffs-non-petitioners submits that the case was listed on 17.12.1994. On the request of the petitioner it was adjourned for filing the written statement on 7.3.1995. On that date the petitioner did not file written statement but filed the present application with a view to prolong the litigation. In such circumstances the trial court was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner can deposit the rent under Section 19A of the Act and can not deposit the same in the present suit. He submits that the lower courts did not commit an