PADAM SINGH Vs. SHOBHA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's revision against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Rajsamand dated 5-7-86 dismissing his appeal against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara dated 12-1-55 by which his defence had been struck off.

(2.) The plaintiff Shobha Lal had filed a suit against Padam Singh for ejectment, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent. The defendant contested the suit and on 5-7-79, the trial court determined the amount of arrears of rent etc. under S.13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') saying that the defendant had to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2425/- within one month from the date of the order. It further observed that this rent had been determined up to 11-7-79. It appears that the tenant deposited the amount in time and also went on depositing the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month for some time. However, he committed default in payment of the monthly rent of the succeeding months whereupon his defence was struck off vide order dated 14-5-81. Aggrieved of this, the defendant went up in appeal and the learned Addl. District Judge, Rajsamand by his order dated 12-7-84 found that the determination of provisional rent under S.13(3) of the Act by the order dated 5-7-79 was not in accordance with law as the necessary details of the period from which the amount was calculated the amount of monthly rent and the amount of interest etc. had not been specified in the order and, therefore, that order was bad in law and on the basis of such an order, the defendant could not be expected to deposit the monthly rent properly and if he committed any default in the circumstances, his defence could not be struck off. He remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction that it should determine the provisional rent under S.13(3) of the Act and thereafter give an opportunity to the parties to show how the rent was deposited and how any default had been committed. In pursuance of this order when the matter came back to the trial court, the trial court instead of redetermining the provisional rent, merely explained vide its order dated 22-2-85 that he had determined the provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Thereafter by a separate order dated 22-7-85, he found that the tenant had committed default in depositing the monthly rent by the 15th of every succeeding month and, therefore, the defence of the defendant is struck out. Aggrieved of this order dated 12-7-85, the tenant went up in appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Rajsamand. The learned Addl. District Judge upheld the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal by his order dated 5-7-86. The tenant has therefore, come up in revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant order sheets and the earlier decisions certified copies of which have been made available to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner.