SHANTI LAL Vs. RAM GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar dated 9.12.1980 upholding the order of Additional Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Alwar dated 3.10.1979, whereby defence of the defendant-petitioner was struck off.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this revision are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit for eviction of two shops situated in Mohalla Shivpura, Alwar against the petitioner on 4.10.1975. According to the plaintiff, one shop was let out to the petitioner on 19.2.1967 at Rs. 30/- p.m. and another shop was let out at Rs. 15/- p.m. on 1.5.1967. The suit for eviction was based on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff. The defendant filed his written statement on 24.11.1975 and took the plea, inter alia, that one shop was taken on rent on 19.2.1967 the tenancy of that shop also began from the date. As regards the other shop, it was admitted that the tenancy began from 1.5.1967. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff wanted to enhance the rent and the suit was filed with an ulterior motive and the plaintiff had no reasonable and bonafide requirement of the shop. It was also pleaded that both the shops were separate and were taken on rent separately by executing two separate rent notes and as such one suit could not be filed for eviction of both the shops.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that originally the suit was not based on default in payment of rent, the order passed by the trial Court on 19.12.1975 determining the amount of Rs. 228/- was without jurisdiction, illegal and non est. According to the plaintiff himself, he took the plea of default in payment of rent by seeking amendment in the plaint, which was allowed by the trial Court on 30.1.1979. Thereafter, there was no order of the trial Court determining the rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Premises Act). It was thus contended that there was no question of striking off the defence against Eviction when the rent was not determined under Section 13(3) of the premises Act and the plaintiff cannot take any benefit of an order passed without jurisdiction on 19.12.1975. It was the months of April, May and June, 1979 on 2.7.1979 out of abundant caution and the amount was also deposited on 2.7.1979. Both the Courts below have not considered the ground of illness of the petitioner, otherwise the petitioner was entitled to deposit the rents of 3 months on 2.7.1979. As regards the month of April 79, it was contended that the tenancy of one shop began from 19th of each month and its rent fell due on 18th May and could have been paid by 3rd of June and as the trial Court was closed for summer vacations on 3rd June, the rent could have been paid on 2nd day of July, 1979, which was the opening day of the Court after summer vacations.