JAGANNATH Vs. JANIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal, arising out of a suit for eviction of a tenant from the rented premises, learned counsel for the tenant appellant has made two submissions: His first contention is that the expression "the first date of hearing" occurring in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') should be construed as the date on which the Court applied its mind to the facts of the case and framed the issues and not the date fixed for appearance in the summons issued to the defendant. The second contention of learned counsel is that the trial Court failed to determine the amount payable by the tenant in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act and the amount, deposited by the tenant towards arrears of rent and interest thereon, was withdrawn by the landlord plaintiff on July 31, 1969, during the pendency of the suit without any demur and as such the plaintiff should be deemed to have waived the objection that the amount was not deposited on the first date of hearing.

(2.) The necessary facts which have led to the aforesaid controversy may be mentioned here. The plaintiff landlord filed the suit for eviction on October 18, 1968, on three grounds, inter alia: - (i) personal necessity of the landlord for the suit premises; (ii) damage was caused to the premises by the tenant, and (iii) the tenant had committed defaults in payment of rent.

(3.) The questions relating to reasonable and bona fide personal necessity of the landlord for the suit premises and damage to the premises by the tenant were decided against the plaintiff landlord by the trial Court and those questions were not contested by the plaintiff in the first appeal, nor any contest was raised in respect of those questions before me in this second appeal. So the question which survive is as to whether the tenant committed defaults in payment of rent. The trial Court held that as the tenant had not deposited the arrears of rent together with interest thereon, on the first date fixed for hearing of the suit, the defendant tenant could not take benefit of the provisions of Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act, as they stood at the relevant time. It was also held that the rent was in arrears for more than 6 months on the date of institution of the suit, as such the tenant was held to be a defaulter and a decree for ejectment was passed against him on that ground. The first appellate Court also took the same view and the plea of waiver, which was also advanced before him did not find favour with the first appellate Court.