HIRALAL Vs. HARIBUX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 28-5-74 of the Additional District Judge, Churu, confirming in appeal the order of the Munsif, Ratangarh, dated 17-5-73 striking out the defence of the petitioner against eviction under sec. 13 (6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) HARIBUX Non-petitioner instituted a suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent on 25-1-72 in the Court of Munsif, Ratangarh against Hiralal tenant and Roopsingh defendant No. 2 as surety. The eviction was sought inter alia on the ground of default under sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Act. On the first date of hearing the petitioner defendant asked for sometime to deposit the arrears of rent. The learned Munsif by his order dated 21-3-72 allowed him time to deposit Rs. 1383. 90 paise on or before 22-4-72. He also directed him to deposit rent for the subsequent months from 22 4 72 onwards within 15 days of each month. The defendant paid in the Court Rs. 1100/-on 22-4 72. For the balance of Rs. 283. 90 paise he again prayed for time and the learned Judge allowed him one months time. Within that time the said balance was paid. No dispute has been raised with respect of these payments. According to the plaintiff the rent for subsequent months was not paid in time. It was neither deposited in accordance with the requirement of section 13 (4) nor in terms of the order passed by the learned Munsif. It is admitted between the parties that the month of tenancy started from Shukla 9 of every Hindi month. The controversy that had arisen is with regard to the payments for the months Baisakh Shukla 9 (corresponding to 22-4-72} to Sravan Shukla 8 (corresponding to 18 7 72 ). The tenant deposited Rs. 120/- by tender No. 47 on 12-7-72 for the period 22-5-72 to 21-7-72. No payment appears to have been made for the month Baisakh Shukla 9 to Jeth Shukla 7, that is, 22-4-72 to 20 5-72. On 21-7-72 the plaintiff submitted an application that the rent has not been paid in accordance with sec. 13 (4) of Act and as such the defence against eviction be struck out. On 21 8-72 the defendant submitted an application, that on 22-6-72 the sent the amount of rent by money order but it was not accepted. The Courts were closed in June, 1972. Though the Courts re opened after the summer break on 2-7-72 but then he fell sick and as such he could not deposit the amount on 2-7 72 and could get the rent of two months deposited on 12-7-72. He prayed that in the circumstances of the case the delay be condoned. It was then found that the rent for the period 22-4-72 to 20-5-72 was not deposited at all. The defendant then made an application on 16 12 72 that the sum of Rs. 120/- deposited by him by tender No. 47 dated 12 7-72 should be treated to have been for the period from 22-4 72 to 19-6 72 by another tender No. 74 on 7 8 72 the amount of Rs. 60/- was found to have been deposited from Asadh Sukhla 9 to Sravan Sukhla 8. The learned Munsif found that the defendant had not deposited the amount of rent according to the requirement of sec. 13 (4) of the Act. He, therefore, struck out the defence against eviction. The matter was taken up in appeal and the learned lower appellate Court elaborately discussed the law and held that it was not within the power of the Munsif to extend time. He found that the defence was rightly struck out under sec. 13 (6) of the Act.

(3.) I accordingly hold that the petitioner had not deposited the amount of rent as required by sec. 13 (4) of the Act. His defence against eviction has been rightly struck out by the Munsif and upheld by the lower Appellate Court. I find no force in this revision application and it is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. .