SUMITRA DEVI Vs. RATAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dated 31. 3. 1984, allowing the appeal of the tenant-defendant preferred against the decree for eviction dated 5. 7. 1982.

(2.) EARLIER landlord Badri Narayan (appellant No. 1) filed on suit for eviction of his tenant Ratan Lal (deceased) which was registered as C. O. Suit No. 832/73. The ground for eviction of the tenant was only default in payment of rent. The tenant was protected from his eviction otherwise than on the ground as provided under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short "the Act of 1950" ). As per Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act of 1950, in case of default in payment of rent for six months by the tenant, the landlord can institute the suit for eviction of the tenant but one opportunity is given to the tenant to avoid the eviction by making payment in the court as determined by the court under Section 13 (3) read with sub-section (4) of the Act of 1950. During the pendency of the C. D. Suit No. 832/73, insertion of Section 13a in the Act of 1950 gave an opportunity to the tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and the cost of the suit. By this offer by the tenant by moving appropriate application and on determination of the arrears of rent by the civil Court, the tenant is required to deposit the determinated rent under sub-section (b) of Section 13a of the Act of 1950. Sub-section (b) of Section 13a provides that in case the tenant pays the determined arrears of rent, interest and the cost within the stipulated period which shall not be exceeding 90 days, the eviction proceeding against the tenant shall be disposed of as if the tenant has not committed any default. Suit No. 832/1973

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that sub-section (b) of Section 13a very specifically provides that in case tenant wants to take benefit under Section 13a, he should apply to the court and pay landlord all arrears of rent, interest thereon and full cost of the suit, in case tenant applies then the court determines the arrears of rent under sub- section (b) of Section 13a and awards interest at the rate of 6% per annum and also determines the cost of the suit and directs the tenant to pay the amount so determined within such time, not exceeding 90 days which may be fixed by the Court. Sub-section (b) of Section 13a also provides that on such payment being made within the time fixed by the court, the proceeding shall be disposed of as if tenant had not committed any default. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the above unambiguous legal position, the tenant can deposit the rent as determined by the Court and not for the period beyond the period for which the rent was determined by the court. THE law also specifically provides that on payment of such determined rent, the proceeding (suit for eviction of tenant on the ground of default) shall stand disposed of. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court in the case of Shyamlal and another vs. Upbhokta Sahakari Samiti, Jodhpur (AIR 1983 Raj. 133) held that the ground of Section 13 (1) (a) falls through the moment the tenant deposits the amount of rent and interest on the first day of hearing or within the time allowed by the Court. THE learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon another judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Siya Sadan vs. Sagar Mal & Ors. (1982 WLN 118) wherein this Court held that the ground of default disappears and becomes non-existent in the eye of law on account of payment of rent after its jurisdiction under Section 13a of the Act.