SHYAMLAL Vs. UPBHOKTA SAHAKARI SAMITIJODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 17-2-1981, passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, whereby he allowed the application under Section 13 (7) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), reversing the order of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City, dated 23-10-1980, whereby the learned Munsif rejected the defendant's application under Section 13 (7) of the Act. The learned Civil Judge further directed that the suit shall proceed only relating to costs.

(2.) I may briefly narrate the facts and circumstances leading to the present revision petition. The petitioners instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant from the shops on the ground of default. The suit was instituted on 14-4-1975. Summons were issued to the defendant. Thereupon the defendant appeared on 4-8-1975 and submitted an application under Section 13 (4) of the Act. The case was then adjourned to 11-8-1075. On 11-8-1075 the defendant submitted an application under Section 13 (7) of the Act. On 19-8-1975 the plaintiffs submitted reply to the application. The court considered that the only controversy between the parties relates to costs and interest so an issue to that effect was framed. However, the case was posted for filing of the written statement and evidence on that issue, to 26-8-1975. On 26-8-1975. counsel for the defendant, expressed that the defendant wants to proceed with the suit after framing all issues on filing of the written statement. Thereupon, the counsel for the plaintiffs expressed that the plaintiffs have no objection. The case was then posted for filing of the written statement. The written statement was filed cm 16-9-1975. The Court thereafter proceeded to try the suit. After trial, the learned Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit on 25-9-1976. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, which was allowed on 2-1-1977 and the decree passed by the trial court, was set aside and the plaintiff's suit for eviction was dismissed. However, the plaintiffs were allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the defendant from the court. The plaintiffs then preferred second appeal, which was allowed on 11-8-1880 and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court were set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court with a direction to proceed with the suit in the light of the observations made in the judgment in accordance with law. After the remand of the case, on behalf of the defendant, a prayer was made that the defendant's application under Section 13 (7) of the Art may be first heard and decided and attention was invited to the observations made by this Court at page 15. However, the court framed an issue to the effect as to whether the defendant is a defaulter and then posted the case for hearing the arguments on the defendant's application under Section 13 (7) of the Act. The application under Section 13 (7) of the Act was to the effect that the de-iendant has , paid the amount of rent and interest thereon on the first date of hearing, so the plaintiffs' suit is liable to be dismissed and as such the same may be dismissed. The learned Munsif. after hearing the arguments on the application, dismissed the application The defendant went in appeal against the order dated 11-8-1975 and the learned Additional Civil Judge allowed the appeal, as stated above. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard Shri J. R. Tafia learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners and Shri R. N. Joshi, learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioner.