Honble TATIA, J.–This second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dated 31.3.1984, allowing the appeal of the tenant-defendant preferred against the decree for eviction dated 5.7.1982.

(2). Earlier landlord Badri Narayan (appellant No. 1) filed on suit for eviction of his tenant Ratan Lal (deceased) which was registered as C.O. Suit No. 832/73. The ground for eviction of the tenant was only default in payment of rent. The tenant was protected from his eviction otherwise than on the ground as provided under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short ``the Act of 1950). As per Section 13(1)(a) of the Act of 1950, in case of default in payment of rent for six months by the tenant, the landlord can institute the suit for eviction of the tenant but one opportunity is given to the tenant to avoid the eviction by making payment in the court as determined by the court under Section 13(3) read with sub-section (4) of the Act of 1950. During the pendency of the C.D. Suit No. 832/73, insertion of Section 13A in the Act of 1950 gave an opportunity to the tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and the cost of the suit. By this offer by the tenant by moving appropriate application and on determination of the arrears of rent by the civil Court, the tenant is required to deposit the determinated rent under sub-section (b) of Section 13A of the Act of 1950. Sub-section (b) of Section 13A provides that in case the tenant pays the determined arrears of rent, interest and the cost within the stipulated period which shall not be exceeding 90 days, the eviction proceeding against the tenant shall be disposed of as if the tenant has not committed any default.

Suit No. 832/1973

(3). It appears from the facts of the C.O. Suit No. 832/73 that before coming into force of Section 19A, the rent was determined by the civil court but the defendant failed to deposit the rent in time, therefore, his defence was struck off by the civil court by order dated 7.4.1974. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed. But since the tenant got further opportunity because of the amendment and insertion of Section 19A in the Act of 1950, therefore, the defendant submitted application under Section 13A(a) of the Act of 1950 and prayed that he is ready to pay all arrears of rent, interest and cost of the suit. On this application, the trial Court determined the rent under sub-section (b) of Section 13A by order dated 31.10.1975 as arrears of rent, Rs. 230.25 as interest and the cost of the suit of Rs. 290/-. This order was amended by another order of the trial Court dated 18.12.1975. By this, the interest was increased to Rs. 290/- from Rs. 230.25 and cost of the suit was decreased to Rs. 244.50 in place of Rs. 290/-. The trial Court directed the defendant to pay Rs. 2617/- by 23.12.1975. Said rent was deposited in the trial Court on 20.12.1975. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the suit was not disposed of on 20.12.1975, the date on which the defendant deposited the rent nor it was disposed of on 23.12.1975, the date by which the defendant was permitted to deposit the rent under sub-section (b) of Section 13A of the Act of 1950. The suit continued and defendants evidence was closed on 26.2.1976. The plaintiff closed his rebuttal evidence on 19.7.1976. It will be further relevant to mention here that before the trial Court, the plaintiff himself submitted an application for striking off the defence of the tenant on the ground that the tenant did not deposit the rent month by month obviously for the period after 31.10.1975 and till the suit was pending. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit No. 832/1973 of the plaintiff after recording finding that the rent deposited by the tenant (respondent) for the period beyond the period for which the rent was determinated by the trial Court is not valid payment of rent to the landlord an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document