DHANRAJ & ORS Vs. BHEEM SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-defendants by way of present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the impugned order dated 08.01.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1 Beawar, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") in Civil Suit No.65/2002, whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondents-plaintiffs for striking out the defence of the petitioners-defendants under Section 13 (5) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and have also challenged the impugned order dated 01.03.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Civil Misc. Appeal No.3/2013, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and confirmed the order passed by the trial court.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the civil suit seeking eviction of the petitioners/defendants from the suit premises under Section 13 of the said Act on the ground that the petitioners had made default in the payment of rent and that the respondents required the suit premises bonafide. In the said suit, the trial court passed the order dated 31.05.1989, determining the provisional rent of the suit premises @ Rs.100 per month and calculated the arrears to the tune of Rs.3800/- for 38 months, and Rs.10.50 towards the interest. In the said order, the trial court recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had deposited the entire arrears of rent. Thereafter on 03.03.2008 the respondents/plaintiffs submitted the application for striking out the defence of the petitioners under Section 13 (5) of the said Act stating interalia that the petitioners had not deposited the rent and the amount of Rs.10.50 towards interest as directed by the Court within the prescribed time limit and that defence be struck out. The said application was resisted by the petitioners by filing the reply stating interalia that no amount of rent was outstanding on the date of determination of provisional rent and therefore the question of making payment of interest did not arise. It appears that thereafter the petitioners had filed an application under Section 152 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking correction in the order dated 31.05.1989 on that ground that the amount of Rs.10.50 was inadvertently calculated in the said order. The trial court dismissed the said application vide the order dated 03.08.2011, against which the petitioner had preferred the writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to raise the contentions incorporated in the petition before the trial court, as the respondents had filed the application under Section 13 (5) of the said Act for striking out the defence of the petitioners. The trial court thereafter passed the impugned order dated 08.01.2013 for striking out the defence of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred the appeal before the appellate court, which also has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 01.03.2014. Hence, the petitioners have preferred the present petition, challenging the orders of the trial court as well as of the appellate court.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta for the petitioners taking the Court to the provisions contained in Section 13 of the said Act as also the decision of the Apex Court in case of Mam Chand Pal Versus Shanti Agarwal (Smt), 2002 3 SCC 49, submitted that the provisions of Section 13 (5) were not attracted as there was no direction by the trial court to pay the amount of interest in the order dated 31.05.1989, and that the amount of interest being very small, the trial court should not have become hyper technical. However, the learned counsel Mr. Alok Chaturvedi for the respondents submitted that there being violation of the provisions contained in Section 13 (4), the trial court had rightly struck out the defence of the petitioners under Section 13 (5) of the said Act. Mr. Chaturvedi has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Nasiruddin and others Versus Sita Ram Agarwal, 2003 AIR(SC) 1543, to submit that the provisions of Section 13 (4) are mandatory in nature and in absence of any provision to extend the time limit or condone the delay in making payment of the amount of rent and interest, the trial court could not have condoned the delay.