NET RAM Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 25. 4. 1989 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 13/1988. The facts giving rise to this revision are as under: - The respondent plaintiff had filed a suit against the petitioner for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent of the premises in dispute at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. It was stated that the petitioner was in arrears of rent with effect from June, 1985 and had committed default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months. In the reply the tenancy and the rate of rent were not disputed, but it was contended that originally the premises in dispute had been let out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month and it was prayed that the standard rent of the premises be fixed. Vide the order dated 5-7-1988 the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur passed an order under section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act) directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 14,800/- for the period from 1-6-1985 to 30-6-1988 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month, besides a sum of Rs. 1332/- by way of interest on the above said amount. The petitioner was, thus, directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 16,132/- in the court and also continue to deposit future rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide his order dated 25-4-1989. The appellant has approached this Court by filing this revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE first point raised by Shri Mandhana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that although the rent for a period of ten months was due from the petitioner, as stated in the petition, the plaintiff-respondent had filed the suit for recovery of only 7 months' rent and as such the order for the entire period of ten months for which the rent was due, could not be passed by the learned trial court. If a tenant commits default in payment of rent, two rights accrue to the plaintiff landlord. One is to recover the rent for the period that it is due and the other is to seek his ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. In the present suit the plaintiff has exercised his right to claim the eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent from June, 1985 although the second relief of recovery of rent has been restricted by him for the period from September, 1985. THE rent was admittedly due from June, 1985 and the learned trial court had thus to determine the rent for the entire period for which it was due and to pass an order with a direction that the same be paid by the tenant petitioner. THE petitioner has to pay the entire rent with a view to take benefit of section 13 (6) of the Act although the landlord cannot assert his right to recover that rent by seeking a decree from the court for the period for which he has not paid the court fee and sought the decree.