HIRANAND Vs. UMAID RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's second appeal directed against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, ordering the tenant's eviction from the suit premises.

(2.) THE eviction from the suit Premises was sought on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the landlord. The tenant resisted the suit. This gave rise to the following four issues:-

(3.) LOOKING to the plaint I find that the suit is no doubt based on the bona fide personal necessity of the landlord but in spite of that for continuing to earn the protection under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and eviction) Act. 1950, (hereinafter called "the Act") the tenant has always to be ready and willing to pay rent for the premises to the full extent allowable by this act Further the tenant has to abide by the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act Therefore, when the defence of the tenant was struck off the plaintiff landlord was entitled to claim his rights under the general law, namely, to make the tenant quit the premises when the tenancy is determined in accordance with section 106 read with Section 111 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act. The question here is whether the defence of the defendant was struck off in accordance With law. The learned Munsiff has passed a detailed order on 23-9-1969. It goes to show that on 17-2-1969 the learned Munsiff has determined the rent payable by the tenant under Section 13 (4) of the Act at Rs. 1,090/ -. Towards this Rs. 1,000/- only were deposited by the tenant on 16-4-1969. It was urged that it was at the request of Shri Sumermal learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord (since deceased) that only this much rent was deposited. The learned munsiff considered the question whether Rs. 1,000/-was deposited in full and final satisfaction of the amount determined by the Court as rent. He also considered the question whether Shri Sumermal had any authority to waive the payment of Rs. 907 -. Both the questions were decided against the defendant-tenant. Against this order an appeal was taken by the tenant to the Court of the learned Additional district Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the order of the learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. The tenant then came up in revision to this Court but was unsuccessful. In the circumstances there is no force in the contention that the learned Munsiff was in error in striking off the defence of the tenant. Sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act, inter alia, provides that if the tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in Sub-section (4) on the date or within the time specified In the order the Court shall order the defence against the eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. As the tenant had failed to deposit the rent in full by the date fixed the Court had no option but to strike out the tenant's defence against eviction,