CHANDRA BHAN Vs. RAMESHWAR LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second appeal by the defendants tenants.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction in September 1989 with the averments that late Shri Bhagwati Prasad was a tenant in one room, one kothari, kitchen and bath room in House No. 24/273 situated in Chand Baori, Ajmer. Monthly rent agreed upon was Rs. 21/ -. THE original landlord was Shri Ganga Sahai. THE plaintiff purchased this house from Shri Ganga Sahai vide registered sale-deed dated 20. 7. 1982 and the defendants-wife (since deceased) son and daughter of the original tenant Bhagwati Prasad were informed. Eviction was sought on the grounds of default in payment of rent, the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, reasonable and bonafide requirement for plaintiff's son Sandeep and alternative accommodation acquired by the tenants.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that the rent deposited under Section 19-CC of the Act should have been adjusted against the arrears of rent and thus there was no default of six months at the time of filing the suit. Reliance is placed upon M/s. Sarwan Kumar Onkar Nath vs. Subhash Kumar Agarwal, 1987 (2) R. C. R. 502 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the tenant paid two months rent in advance at the time of taking the tenancy, the landlord could adjust the advanced rent towards the arrears of rent. Similar view was taken by this Court in Shanti Lal vs. Shiv Pal Singh 1987 (1) R. C. R. 119 = 1987 RLW 208. LEARNED counsel for the respondent contended that the respondents failed to prove the compliance of the provisions of Section 19-A of the Act before depositing the advance rent in the court and further he has given no evidence for the compliance of Section 19-CC of the Act and there is no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two courts below. It was also contended that the Trial Court determined the provisional rent under Section 13 (3) of the Act but the defendants did not pay the monthly rents thereafter, hence defence against eviction was struck out vide order dated 26. 8. 1995 and thus the tenants were rightly held not to be entitled for the benefit of first default.