KANHAIYA LAL Vs. AMENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal relates to ejectment of a tenant from a shop situated in the town of Sujangarh on the ground of defaults for payment of rent.

(2.) THE suit was filed on December 20, 1967 and the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had not paid rent for a period of over seven months. The tenancy was alleged to be monthly and the rent was said to be Rs. 33.75 paisa per month. The defendant's case was that the tenancy was annual and although the rent earlier was Rs. 201/ - per annum it was subsequently raised to Rs. 401/ - per annum. The defendant pleaded that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 401/ -, towards yearly rent of the premises in dispute, in the trial court on November 28, 1967 under Section 19 -A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after called 'the Act') and that the rent so deposited should be considered to have been paid to the plaintiff landlord. Thus according to the defendant no amount was due towards rent on the date of the institution of the suit.

(3.) ON appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trial court on the question as to whether the tenancy between the parties was monthly or yearly. According to the first appellate court, the tenancy was monthly and not yearly. It was held that as the alleged tenancy between the parties was oral and no document was executed in respect thereof and as the tenancy was not for agricultural or manufacturing purposes, so under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the tenancy must be deemed to be a monthly one. The first appellate court also proceeded to strike off the defence of the defendant against eviction, under Sub -section (6) of Section 13 of the Act, on the ground that rent was not deposited by the defendant tenant in the trial court month by month during the pendency of the suit, as required under Sub -section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. The first appellate court also held that the rent deposited by the tenant under Section 19 -A of the Act on November 28, 1967 was not in accordance with law as by then more than six month's rent had fallen due and thus the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent. Consequently, the plaintiff's appeal was allowed and the suit for ejectment was decreed by the first appellate court.