MANAGER SASTA SAHITYA PRESS LTD Vs. RAMPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance directed against the Judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 3-7-1973.

(2.) THE material facts which need to be recalled are these : Landlords instituted a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent on the ground of non-payment of rent for six months against the tenants of a property situate on Kacheri Road, Ajmer. An application was moved by one of the tenants under sec. 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter called "the Act") for the deposit of the arrears of rent. Arguments on the application were heard on May 24, 1968 and the trial Court directed the tenants to deposit arrears of rent together with interest by July 10, 1968 and the future rent by the 15th of every month. Time was extended upto 22-7-1968. An application was presented by the landlords on 7-3-1970 praying that the defence of the defendants be struck off under sec. 13(6) of the Act on the ground that none of the defendants had paid rent on the first date of hearing in accordance with the provisions of sec. 13(4) of the Act. THE trial Court accepted the application and ordered that the defence of defendant No. 1 against eviction be struck off and it further ordered that since the defendant No. 2 did not appear he would be deemed to be ex parte. THE trial Court thereafter decreed the plaintiff's suit for eviction and arrears of rent. An appeal was taken before the learned District Judge, who by his judgment dated January 15, 1972 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the order of striking off the defence of one of the defendants and remanded the case to the trial Court for deciding the suit afresh after taking the defendants' evidence. Against that judgment of the learned District Judge, Ajmer, an appeal bearing No.S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 90/72 was brought to this Court and the learned single Judge by his judgment dated July 3, 1973 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and remanded the appeal to the District Judge for fresh decision of the appeal in accordance with law.

(3.) NARASANNA's case (3) does not support Mr. Jain. It was a case for recovery of certain lands. Second appeal was preferred by the plaintiff. The defendant-respondents made an application praying for an interim injunction that the appellants be restrained from obstructing them from cultivating lands pending second appeal. The learned Single Judge refused interim injunction. The question which arose for consideration was whether this was a judgment under cl. 15 of the Madras Letters Patent. The learned Judges held that it was not and no letters patent appeal was permissible without leave.