BAKHTAWAR SINGH Vs. TIKAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant civil second appeal has arisen out of a suit filed by respondent-plaintiff Tikam Chand for eviction and arrears of rent. THE suit came to be decreed with costs by the learned Munsiff (East), Ajmer on 8. 4. 1991. THE appeal filed against the said judgment and decree decreeing the suit was dismissed with costs on 7. 10. 1993 by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Ajmer. This has led to the filing of the present civil second appeal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts are that the plaintiff- respondent rented his house situated at Dhola Bhata Housing Colony, Ajmer to appellant-defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 110/ -. It was averred that the appellant-defendant did not pay the rent since 1. 5. 1980 despite notice. The suit was also filed on the ground that the appellant-defendant had left Ajmer since March, 1981 and was not using the rented premises and that the had denied the title of the landlord. The appellant-defendant denied all averments made in the suit and pleaded that the rent was Rs. 70/- per month. The plaintiff-respondent controverted the averments made in the written statement by filing replica. The trial court framed six issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. After affording opportunity of hearing the both the sides, the suit for eviction and arrears of rent was decreed on the ground of default in payment of rent. Other grounds were not found proved. As indicated above, the appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed affirming the judgment of the learned trial court.

(3.) AS indicated above, the first substantial question of law framed in this case pertains to deposit of rent by the appellant- defendant on 2. 8. 1991 pursuant to the order of the appellate court but obviously this does not and cannot save the legal default committed by the appellant-defendant in payment of rent. Admittedly, the defence against eviction of the defendant- appellant had been struck off on 16. 7. 1990 for his failure to pay to the plaintiff or to deposit rent in the court. After the defence having been struck off for non-payment of rent in time, the deposit of rent in the appellate court is of little avail to the appellant which legal position could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The first substantial legal question thus, is decided against the appellant-defendant.