RAM NIWAS Vs. MALIK MAHBOOBALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from the judgment dated 1-12-1988 of the High Court of Rajasthan in S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 200 of 1983 and its order in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 414 of 1984. The High Court held that the tenant having committed default of payment of rent subsequent to the deposits which he had earlier made, the proviso to sub-section (6) of S. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, as amended in 1965, was attracted. The High Court noticed that a suit for eviction on the ground of default and other grounds had been instituted by the respondent-landlord in 1964; that suit was dismissed for non-prosecution by the landlord; the present suit was filed by the respondent-landlord in 1968 on the ground of default; and, the tenant committed default of payment after making certain deposits towards rent. The High Court concluded that the tenant was, therefore, liable to be evicted by reason of the proviso to sub-s. (6) of S. 13 of the Act.

(2.) Mr. Krishnamoorthy lyer, appearing for the appellants, submits that the deposits were made in the course of proceedings in the second suit and the full amount which had become due had been paid. An application had been filed seeking direction as to whether any further amounts remained unpaid. The proviso to sub-s. (6) of S. 13 of the Act, Mr. lyer says, hag no application on the facts of this case because the earlier suit was dismissed for non-prosecution by the landlord.

(3.) Mr. C. M. Lodha, appearing for the respondent-landlord, submits that the earlier suit was for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default amongst other grounds. The tenant can seek the protection of the Act only if he deposits all amounts due and payable by him and continues regularly to make the requisite deposits in the future. Any default on the part of the tenant deprives him of the protection of the Act by reason of the proviso to sub-s. (6) of S. 13. Mr. Lodha further states that there is no evidence to show that the tenant has deposited all the rents payable by him in full and that he continues to deposit the rent. He further states that the application filed by the tenant for the determination of the rent has already been disposed of by the appellate court by a specific order.