MADAN MOHAN Vs. MADHU SUDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition raises a short question as to whether the defence of the defendant tenant against eviction was wrongly struck off by the courts below.

(2.) THE facts which have led to the filing of the present revision petition may be briefly state: THE opposite party Madhu Sudan filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner Madan Mohan in respect of a shop situated in Kuchaman City. THE plaintiff also claimed recovery of arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 468/-, at the rate of Rs. 13/- per month. THE suit was filed on two grounds, namely, that the defendant had committed defaults in payment of rent for a period of more than 6 months and had become defaulter within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) and that the plaintiff had bona fide and reasonable personal necessity for the shop in dispute. On the application of the defendant, the trial court by its order dt. August 2, 1976 determined the amount of arrears of rent which was payable by the tenant and held that rent for 40 months from March 17, 1973 to July 16, 1976, at the rate of Rs. 13/- per month, in all Rs. . 515/-, together with interest thereon at the rare of 6% per annum was payable by the defendant tenant to the landlord plaintiff. THE trial court directed that the aforesaid amount should be paid or deposited by the defendant upto August 17, 1976. THE defendant paid a sum of Rs. 537. 57 p. to the plaintiff on August 17, 1976 in respect of arrears of rent upto July 16, 1976 and interest thereon, as directed by the trial court and a receipt evidencing the said payment was produced before the trial court.

(3.) IT was then argued by the learned counsel for the defendant petitioner that the trial court, by its order dated August 2, 1976 directed the defendant to deposit rent for the period from March 17, 1973 to July 16, 1976 by August 17, 1976 and that the defendant was misled by the fact that the total amount of arrears of rent together with interest thereon had been deposited by him and the defendant was under an impression that rent upto August 16, 1976 has been deposited by him. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the receipt which was given by the landlord on August 17, 1976 clearly stated that rent upto July 16, 1976 together with interest thereupon amounting to Rs. 47. 57, in all a sum of Rs 567. 57, was received by him from the defendant. This receipt was given on August 17, 1976, by the plaintiff to the defendant, who filed the same in the trial court. At that time the defendant must have been fully aware of the fact that he had paid rent to the plaintiff only upto July 16, 1976 and the rent for the subsequent period was yet to be paid to the plaintiff or deposited in the court Moreover, the tender for the period from July 17, 1976 to September 16, 1976 which is on the record of the trial court at page D 23/1 clearly shows that a sum of Rs. 26/- was sought to be deposited by the defendant on September 26, 1976 represented rent for the period of two months from July 17, 1976 upto September 16, 1975. Thus, there could be no misconception while making the aforesaid deposit of rent and the submission made by the learned counsel that the defendant was misled is merely an after thought and deserves to be rejected.