PRAHLAD BAHADUR SAXENA Vs. NARAIN DASS KALRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff opposite party instituted a suit No. 348 of 1974 against the defendant applicant for arrears of rent and eviction. Subsequently, another suit No. 265 of 1976 was instituted by the plaintiff opposite party in the court of Munsiff Magistrate (Estt), Ajmer, which was later on transferred to the court of Additional Munsiff (East), Ajmer and later on again transferred to the court of Additional Munsiff (West), Ajmer, THE rent for the period 15th May, 1978 to 10th July, 1979 and from 14th November, 1979 to 28th February, 1980 was deposited by the applicant in the court of Additional Munsiff (West), Ajmer, THE plaintiff opposite party moved an application under Section 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, praying that the defence of the defendant applicant be struck - off as he had committed defaults in the payment of rent. Upon this the defence of the defendant applicant was struck-off and that order has been confirmed by order dated 13th may, 1983 passed by this court in civil revision No. 19/83. After this the defendant applicant moved an application for amendment of the written statements praying that he may be allowed to add a paragraph in the written statements to the effect that the rent deposited by it for the period of 15. 5. 73 to 10. 7. 79, and 14. 11. 79 to 28. 2. 1980 in suit No. 348/74 before the Additional Munsiff (East.) Ajmer, may be adjusted towards the rent payble in the later suit No. 265/76. This amendment application was disallowed by the Additional Civil Judge. No. 2, Ajmer, when it was present before him during the course of the pendency of the appeal. Against this order the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, as far as the question of striking off the defence of the defendant applicant for non payment of rent is concerned, it has become final. In view of the order passed by this court on 23. 6. 1983. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the only purpose for moving this Amendment application is that the defendant applicant may not have to pay the rent for aforesaid two months twice, it is contended that the deposited amount of rent in another court may be adjusted towards the rent payable by the plaintiff opposite party.