MOTI LAL Vs. PRAHLAD RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 26. 5. 1982 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer in Civil Appeal No. 111/80 affirming the decree of eviction passed against him by the learned Munsif (West), Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 325/76. The brief facts are under:-

(2.) THE defendant has been a tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/ -. Earlier, suit No. 399/72 was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant on the grounds of default in payment of rent and during the pendency of the said suit, on an application having been moved by the defendant under section 13 (A) of the Rajasthan Permises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act), the court had determined a sum of Rs. 388. 88 paise as the amount payable by way of rent, interest, costs etc till 10. 11. 1975 and vide order dated 11. 11. 1975, the court directed the defedant to deposit the same within the specified period and also to deposit the future rent month by month during the pendency of the said suit. THE defendant deposited the above said sum of Rs. 388. 88 paise in the court within time, but instead of depositing the future rent month by month, deposited a sum of Rs. 60/- on 20. 2. 1976 and Rs. 30/- on 1. 7. 1976. Since the subsequent two deposits were not made within time by the defendant, the plaintiffs moved an application praying that his defence against eviction should be struck out. THE said application was opposed by the defendant on the ground that he having deposited the initial amount determined by the court within time, the ground of default in payment of rent came to an end and his defence could not be struck out for not having deposited the rent for the subsequent months within time. Vide the judgment dated 9. 7. 1976, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant having deposited the above said sum of Rs. 388. 88 paise determined by the court, the ground of default in payment of rent came to an end and, as such, he was entitled to the benefit of having deposited the amount. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. THE suit, out of which the present appeal arises, was filed by the plaintiffs on 18. 9. 1976 stating that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent for the period from Kartik Badi 5 Samvat 2032 to Asoj Badi 4 Samvat 2033 corresponding to the period from 24. 10. 1975 to 12. 9. 1976 and that he having availed benefit in the earlier suit, he was liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent for a period more than six months. THE defendant contested the suit and pleaded that during the pendency of the above said suit he had made the above said deposits of Rs. 60/- and 30/- and after the decision of the earlier suit he had tendered to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 80/- i. e. Rs. 20/-towards the rent due till then and Rs. 60/- as the rent for future months, but they having refused to accept the same, he had served a notice calling upon them to furnish their bank account so that he could deposit the rent as and when it became due, but since he did not get any reply from them he deposited the amount in the court under section 19 of the Act. He, therefore, contended that he had not committed any default and prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the issue to determine whether the defendant was guilty of having committed default in payment of rent for the second time and after recording the evidence produced by the parties, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the deposits made by the defendant were not valid and he having been granted benefit of the deposits made in the earlier suit, is liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute. THE appeal filed by the defendant having been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, he has approached this court by filing this second appeal.