NATHULAL Vs. VISHNU CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point for decision in this appeal by the defendant-tenant is whether the words "for the period for which the tenant may have made default" occurring in section 13 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 refer to the period for which the arrears of rent are within limitation or they refer to the full arrears of rent be they within limitation or barred by limitation ?

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that these words should be taken to refer only to such arrears of rent as are within limitation and can be legally recovered through the process of the court. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon T. S. R. Sarma v. Nagendra Bala Debi, air 1952 Cal 879 (FB), and Krishna Chandra Bose v. Radharani, AIR 1954 Cal 102.

(3.) I have gone through both the rulings and in my opinion they are distinguishable inasmuch as the view taken therein is based on the language of Section 14 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 17 of 1950. The words used in Section 14 (1) of the West Bengal Act are, "arrears of rent legally recoverable". Under Section 14 (4) the tenant is required to make deposit of the arrears of rent which would in the context mean arrears of rant legally payable. Therefore, in view of the language of Section 14, it was held in AIR 1954 cal 102 that the Court cannot make an order for deposit of any portion of rent which is barred by limitation.