SOBHRAJ Vs. BHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment in respect of a portion of a house situated in the city of Ajmer.

(2.) THE suit was based on three grounds - (i) default in payment of rent for the period 13-1-1968 to 31-12-1968; (ii) material alterations having been made in the suit premises by the defendants without permission of the land-lord; and (iii) sub-letting a part of the premises by the tenant without the consent of the plaintiff. It may be stated here that the plaintiff had previously filed a suit for ejectment is respect of the suit premises against the defendant which was registered as Civil Suit No. 270 of 1964. That suit for ejectment was also based on default. After the introduction of Sec. 13-A in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act') the defendant deposited the arrears of rent along with interest and costs of the suit so that the suit for ejectment was dismissed. THE plaintiff's case is that after having taken benefit of Sec. 13-A of the Act in the previous suit the defendant again committed default in payment of rent for more than six months, and, therefore, he was liable to be ejected. As already stated above he relied on two more grounds for ejectment viz. material alterations by the tenant in the premises and sub-letting by him, but both these grounds have been repelled by the courts below and none of them has been relied upon before me. THE only short question, therefore, for my decision is whether the decree for ejectment granted by the courts below on the ground of default in payment of rent is sustainable?

(3.) THE point for decision before their Lordships was whether it is necessary for the tenant before making a deposit of rent under sec. 19-A to tender the same to the landlord when the landlord has refused it once ? THE point involved in the present case is however a bit different. Here the question is whether it is obligatory on the tenant to make the deposit of rent as provided under sec. 19-A after the landlord has refused to accept the rent once? No doubt in view of the Full Bench case the tenantneed not tender the rent every time after it has been refused once, but the question is whether immunity from tendering the rent also absolves the tenant from depositing the rent in court as provided under sec. 19-A (2) of the Act. In order to appreciate the point I may reproduce here sec. 19-A (1) and (2) for ready reference: - "19a - Deposit of rent by tenant: - (1) Every tenant shall pay rent within the time fixed by contract or in the absence of such contract, by the fifteenth day of the month next following the month for which it is payable. (2) Where the landlord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in sub-sec. (1) or where there is bonafide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the tenant may deposit such rent with the court and such deposit of rent shall be a full discharge of the tenant from the liability to pay rent to the landlord. "