DAYAL RAM Vs. TULSI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the tenant in a suit for recovery and arrears of rent and ejectment. The property in dispute belonged to one Sita Ram, who let it out to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ -. On 12.6.71, Sitaram sold the property to the plaintiff -respondent under a duly registered sale -deed. The plaintiff -respondent served a notice terminating the tenancy and filed the present suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and eviction. The plaintiff sought eviction on two grounds; firstly, that the defendant was a defaulter within the meaning of Sec. 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter called the Act; and secondly that the plaintiff required the premises reasonably and bonafide for her use. The defendant contested the suit and denied all material allegations. It appears that on the first date of hearing the defendant moved an application under Sec. 13(4) of the Act and the Court directed him to deposit the rent upto 2.8.72 with interest. The defendant committed default in depositing the rent determined by the Court as well as in payment of future rent as directed by the Court. The Court, therefore, struck out the defence of the defendant under Sec. 13(6) of the Act. The trial Court held that the notice terminating the tenancy was valid and decreed the suit as the defence in respect of other pleas had been struck out under Sec. 13(6) of the Act. On the question of reasonable and bona fide necessity the trial Court held that there was no evidence to substantiate that plea. Since the suit was decreed the defendant went in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ajmer, who affirmed the finding that the defence of the defendant was rightly struck out under Sec. 13(6) of the Act. On the question of reasonable and bonafide necessity the appellate Court held that it was not necessary to decide that issue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The defendant then preferred this second appeal before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal the Act was amended by Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 which came into force on 29th of September, 1975. The defendant under the amended provisions of the Act moved an application under Sec. 13A(b) of the Act for determination of the rent. This Court on taking account came to the conclusion that no amount was payable to the landlord and in fact a sum of Rs. 70/ - has been paid in excess to the landlord. Sec. 13A(b) of the Act as amended by the Amending Ordinance provides that on payment of the amount determined by the Court under Sec. 13A(b) the proceeding shall be disposed of as if the tenant had not committed any default. In view of the above provision the decree for eviction on the basis of default of payment of rent cannot be sustained. As regards the plea of the plaintiff that she required the premises reasonably and bonafide for her own use, no finding was given by the appellate Court. In the second appeal I also do not propose to decide that question and keep it open for the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the basis of reasonable and bonafide necessity if she so chooses. In the result the appeal is allowed, the decree passed by the Courts below are set aside and the suit is dismissed. Since the costs of all the three courts have been paid by the defendant -tenant, it is not necessary to pass any order as to costs.