BADRI LAL Vs. SETHI BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara dated October 11, 1989 by which he has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Munsif No. 2, Bhilwara dated April 8, 1985, decreeing the suit for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. The fact of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent @ Rs. 40/- per month from May 1, 1979 to October 31, 1980 and mesne profits of the subsequent period and ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent, with the allegations, in short, that in the previous suit of ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent for more than six months, benefit of the provisions of Section 13(a) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') was given. The defendant admits in his written statement that he is in occupation and possession of the suit shop on monthly rent of Rs. 40/- and benefit under Section 13(6) was given to him in the previous suit of ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. He has averred that rent of one month from April 24, 1979 to May 23, 1979, thereafter rent of three months from April 24, 1979 to January 23, 1980 was remitted by Money Orders to the plaintiff, he refused to take the same and the Money Orders sent by him were received back. He has further averred that thereafter he deposited Rs. 400/- as rent from May 1, 1979 to February 29, 1980 in the Court and continued to deposit the rent of the subsequent periods. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court held that the rent was not deposited in time in the Court under Section 19-A of the Act and as such he has committed default in payment of rent of more than six months and accordingly decreed the suit for ejectment. On appeal, the learned District Judge allowed it and set aside the judgment as said above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant-respondent duly supported the judgment under challenge. He contended that after the refusal of the three Money Orders it was not obligatory on the part of the defendant-respondent to further remit the amount of rent of the subsequent months by Money Orders. He also contended that it was not necessary for the defendant-respondent to deposit the rent in the Court under Section 19-A of the Act. He relied upon Smt. Manak Bai v. Kalyan Bux, 1989(2) RLR 704 (DB).