RANCHOD MAL Vs. GOVIND PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant tenant Ranchod Mal s/o Birdi Chand Oswal is carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s. Gram Sewa Bhandar in the disputed suit premises situated in Tripolia Bazar, Jodhpur, has filed this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC in this Court on 05.07.1999 through Shri Gopal Raj Singhvi, Advocate against the plaintiff respondents landlords, LRs of Navratanmal Rakhecha, Govind Prasad and others being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court dated 09.03.1999 dismissing both crossobjections of landlord and appeal of defendant - tenant being Civil Appeal No.71/97 Govind Prasad and other legal representatives of Navratanmal Rakhecha vs. Gram Sewal Bhandar and others and Civil Appeal No.75/97 Ranchodmal s/o Birdi Chand and others vs. Govind Prasad s/o Navratanmal Rakhecha and others. The said appellate court's judgment of learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur was rendered in cross-appeals by both the parties against the judgment and decree of learned trial court of Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, I Class No.6, Jodhpur dated 02.06.1997 in which the eviction suit No.44/95 Govind Prasad and others vs. Gram Sewa Bhandar and others came to be decreed to the extent of arrears of rent only of Rs.1,980/-, however, refusing eviction decree on the ground of giving benefit of first default under Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950.

(2.) The plaintiffs had filed the said eviction Civil Suit No.44/95, inter alia, on the ground of second default committed in payment of rent by the defendant tenant, Shri Ranchod Mal, who was carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s. Gram Sewa Bhandar, Tripolia Bazar, Jodhpur and the plaintiffs came to the court with the case that the shop in question situated in the residential house was initially given on rent @ Rs.55/- per month along with an Aura and a Saal which was at the back side of the suit shop and previously also on account of default in payment of rent for 11 months, the plaintiffs had filed earlier suit No.708/1977 in the court of learned Additional Munsif Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur and upon determination of the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Act on 16.11.1977, the defendant had deposited Rs.1220.26 on 18.11.1977 and thereafter the suit was dismissed as not pressed on 18.08.1990 by the said learned trial court and since the defendant had taken advantage of first default benefit in the said earlier eviction suit No.708/77, the present suit No.44/95 again filed by the plaintiffs landlords, was on the ground of second default committed by the defendant tenant in payment of rent for the long period of 19.10.90 to 2.3.95 for 54 months @ Rs.55/- per month, came to Rs.2,970/- and out of the said 54 months' rent, the plaintiffs claimed recovery of arrears of rent only for a period of three years from 5.3.92 to 2.3.95 for 36 months' amounting to Rs.1980/- and, therefore, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree of eviction on the ground of second default and further mesne profit @ Rs.150/- per month.

(3.) The learned trial court, however, refused to grant eviction decree in the said subsequent suit No.44/95 vide its judgment and decree dated 2.6.97 and the suit was decreed only to the extent of Rs.1,980/- for recovery of arrears of such rent for the aforesaid period of three years. The learned trial court found that the defendant tenant had complied with the provisions of Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 after tendering such rent to the plaintiffs and through his registered notice, he tried to ascertain to bank account number of the plaintiff landlord, but both money orders as well as registered notices were returned as refused and the defendant had deposited the said rent in the Court, therefore, there was neither any first default on the part of the defendant tenant nor he took the benefit of first default under Section 13(6) of the Act in the earlier suit and, thus, the later eviction suit No.44/1995 was liable to be dismissed.