SONA Vs. KAMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated May 23, 1987 by which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the learned Additional Munsif, Bikaner dated March 18, 1985, decreeing the suit for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondents filed a suit against the appellants on the grounds of default in payment of rent for more than six months, reasonable and bonafide necessity and sub-letting. THE defendants seriously resisted the suit. THE learned trial court determined the amount of rent and interest under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter to be called 'the Act' ). THE defendants deposited the determined amount in the court within time but they failed to deposit the rent of two subsequent months i. e. of February, 1984 a. 06. 1984 within time and accordingly their defence was struck out. After recording the statement of the plaintiff Sri Kishan P. W. 1 and hearing the parties, the trial court decreed the suit for ejectment holding that the defendants have committed defaults in payment of rent of said two months. THE defendants preferred appeal against the judgment and decree and it was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner by his judgment under challenge.

(3.) CONTRARY view taken in Siyasaran v. Sagarmal Modi (supra), Shyamlal v. Upbhokta Sahakari Samiti (7) and Deshraj v. Om Prakash, (supra) are no longer good law. All these three cases have been decided by Single Bench of this Court. The first two cases have duly been considered in the Division Bench case of Yogendra Sharma v. Naraindas, (supra ). The observations made in Deshraj vs. Om Prakash (supra) are contrary to the above quoted observations made in Yogendra Sharma's case. It may be mentioned here that the Hon'ble Judge who decided Siyasaran's case took the contrary view in Suraj Narain v. Laxmi Devi (supra ). Its paras 10, 11, 12 and 13 run as under : "10. A comprehensive reading of sec. 13 as a whole and of its subclauses is that the intention of the legislature was that in a suit based on default of payment of rent, the defendant-tenant need not be effected, if he shows his readiness and willingness to pay the rent by first depositing the arrears of rent, as determined under sub-sec. (3) within the period mentioned in sub-sec. (4) and then further making regular payments month to month. 11. I am convinced that both these conditions are essential, inseparable and indivisable. The moment the tenant commits default in either of the two, he can do so at his own peril by exposing himself to the consequence of eviction. 12. Sub-clause (5) further confirms the view which I am taking in as much as it makes no distinction between the first clause or the second clause of sub-sec. (4)CONTRARY to it, it used the words 'any amount'. The word 'any' is significant. The Legislation has used the word 'any' to point out that there are two conditions in clause (4), and if any of the conditions is not fulfilled by the tenant, the court has got no option but to strike out the defence against the eviction. 13. Once the penalty prescribed in sub-clause (5) comes into play, a tenant cannot be saved from the consequences of eviction, as the defence umbrella provided by sub-sec (6) fails to protect him, because the 'sine qua non' or bed rock of application of sub-sec. (6) again is making deposit as required by sub-sec. (4)A combined comprehensive reading of sub-sec. (5) and (6) makes it clear that the legislature has emphasised the compliance of sub-clause (4) in unequivocal terms. The object is very obvious, that the tenant should be vigilant if he wants to take benefit of sub-clause (6)" It cannot, therefore, be held that the ground of eviction on account of default in payment of rent disappeared after the determined amount was deposited. The suit for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent has rightly been decreed by the learned lower courts.