SALIG RAM Vs. NAROTTAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LODHA, J. has referred the following question to this Division Bench--"whether in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section, the defence against eviction cannot be struck out under sub-section (6) for noncompliance of Sub-section (4) in a case where a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed default in payment of rent as contemplated by Section 13, Sub-section (1) (a) of the Act. "

(2.) THE reason why this reference became necessary is that in Vishwanath Singh v. Gopilal, 1970 Raj LW 223 Bhargava, J. , took the view that if in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (l) of Section 13 a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed such default then the court cannot strike out his defence under Section 13 (4) on his failure to deposit the arrears of rent on the first day of hearing and on his failure to pay future rent month by month in accordance with that clause unless the question of his having committed defaults is first determined and it is held that he has actually committed default. Lodha, J. was of the opinion that this view is incorrect and that all that is required for the applicability of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 is that the suit for eviction must have been filed on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) with or without any other grounds referred to in that sub-section, and that Sub-section (4) does not contemplate determination of the question whether or not the tenant has committed default as envisaged in Clause (a) of Section 13 (1 ).

(3.) SECTION 13 (4) runs as follows:-