BANWARILAL Vs. BALKISHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision applications can be conveniently disposed of by one judgment as the same questions of law arise in both of them.

(2.) THEY arise out of two suits for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction from two shops owned by Balkishen plaintiff. The tenant of the shop in S. B. Civil Revision No. 41 of 1972 is Banwarilal and that of shop in S. B. Civil Revision No. 50 of 1972 is Nandlal. Both suits were filed on 15-11-1964. The premises are situate in Rajgarh town of Churu District. The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was published in the gazette on 23 12-1950. Secs. 1 to 4 and 27 to 31 of the Act came into force atonce all over Rajasthan. The remaining sections were not in force in Rajgarh town when the present suit was instituted. THEY came into force during the pendency of the present suit on 31-3 67. The first date of hearing fixed in the two suits was 22-12-65. Both the suits were based on two grounds. The first ground was that the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the rent due from him for six months. The second ground was that the shops were required by |the landlord for his own use. Both the suits were contested by the defendants. The first date of hearing after the coming into force of the whole of the Act, in both the suit was 13-4-1967. On that date the defendants did not deposit the rent as contemplated u/s. 13 (4) of the Act. On 18-5-67 they filed application purporting to be u/s. 13 (4) of the Act and offering to make deposits but no deposit was made even then. On 19-8 70 the plaintiff filed applications that the defence against eviction on the ground of default should be struck out under sec. 13 (6) of the Act. These applications were opposed by the defendants. The trial Court held that when the provisions of sec. 13 of the Act are extended to an area the words "the first date of hearing" mean "the first date of hearing after the coming into force of sec. 13 of the Act in the area. " As no deposit was made as required by sec. 13 (4) of the Act, on 13-4-67, the defence of the defendants against eviction on the ground of default was struck out by the trial Court The defendants appealed to the learned Additional District Judge who concurred with the learned Munsif and dismissed the appeals.