SHANKARLAL Vs. VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and the decree for eviction passed in a rent- ejectment suit on the ground of default. The suit for eviction against the defendant-appellant Shankarlal was field by Shri Vedprakash, the respondent-plaintiff, on or about 6. 7. 1976, inter alia, on the ground that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent for a period of more than 6 months, a she has not paid or tendered rent since 31. 10. 1975; and that rendered him liable to be evicted under sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950' ). The disputed premises is a shop. The rate of rent is alleged to be Rs. 35/- per month. The plaintiff also asked for determination of standard rent, as the shop was let out in December, 1962. It was claimed that the rent rent was at too low a rate. Prayer for fixing Standard Rent under the Act was also made.

(2.) THE trial court by its order dated 2. 2. 1977, determined the amount of rent payable to the landlord-plaintiff under Sec. 13 (3) of the Act of 1950, amounting to Rs. 525/- at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month and interest, amounting to Rs. 18. 40, totalling Rs. 543. 40. THE court ordered that the amount be deposited within 15 days from the date of the order. THE period for depositing the amount Rs. 595/-, as rent upto 31. 03. 1977 and interest Rs. 18. 40, totalling Rs. 613. 40 and, thereafter continued to deposit the rent month by month, until the decision of the suit by the trial court.

(3.) THE defendant-appellant again failed to deposit the monthly rent in time as per order dated 16. 7. 1981. THE plaintiff the upon moved an application for execution of decree for ejectment. THE Executing Court though found in its order dated 4. 2. 1992 that the defendant has not paid or deposited rent in time, in terms of the orders of Court, however, had come to the conclusion that since there was no order by the appellate court for depositing rent in executing court, the decree could not be executed for not depositing the rent in time in the court. THE plaintiff moved this Court on 24. 1. 1992, bringing these facts to the notice of the Court and claiming that as the appellant-defendant has failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the interim order dated 16. 7. 1981, the interim order has automatically come to an end and the executing court be directed to execute the decree. When this application was moved, the appellant moved a Second Stay Application 23. 11. 1992, alleging that the entire rent has been deposited and he could not be dispossessed during the pendency of the appeal. He also claimed that he has deposited or paid entire rent in advance; to which a reply was filed by the respondent plaintiff, giving details of the dates on which the amount has been paid or deposited, bringing out the fact that he has committed default in making payment of rent for October, 1982; May, 1983, September, 1983; July, October a. 11. 1984; February, March a. 09. 1985; August a. 09. 1987; June a. 11. 1988; June to December, 1989; a. 06. 1990 to February, 1991. THE defendant again committed default in making payment of rent in time for the months of June a. 07. 1991. When this application came up for orders, the appeal itself was heard.