KODU MAL Vs. MOHD. IDRISH KHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Munsif (West), Ajmer, vide his judgment and decree dated 25.11.1982, passed a decree of eviction against the appellant on the ground that the appellant committed second default in the payment of rent. The decree passed by the said Court was affirmed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer, vide his judgment and decree dated 15.12.1992. This decree has been challenged in this Civil Second Appeal. It is not in dispute that the appellant obtained benefit of first default in the previously instituted suit. The appellant sent rent by money-order from 8.2.1976 to 31.3.1976 on 1.4.1976. Notice was given to the plaintiffs landlords to disclose their bank-account, but they did not disclose the bank-account. Under these circumstances the defendant appellant filed an application under Sec. 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (for short 'the Act') before the Munsif (West), Ajmer. A notice of the application was given to the plaintiffs-landlords, but they remained absent. On 20.11.1976, the Munsif (West), Ajmer, passed the following order :

(2.) On 1.1.1978, the plaintiffs-respondents filed the present suit for eviction against the defendant-appellant on the ground that the defendant- appellant neither tendered nor paid rent for more than six months and as such he committed second default in the payment of rent. As mentioned above, both the lower courts decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents. Mr. Karnani, counsel for the defendant-appellant submits that the defendant-appellant had deposited rent upto 31.12.1977, under Sec. 19A of the Act. This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents and also by both the lower courts. The only ground on which the decree for eviction has been passed is that the deposit of rent under Sec. 19A from 20.11.1976 to 31.12.1976, was not proper. It is pertinent to note that the Munsif (West), Ajmer, in proceedings under Sec. 19A vide order dated 20.11.1976 directed that the defendant can deposit the rent every month in future. In pursuance of the said direction, the defendant-appellant deposited the rent under Sec. 19A of the Act. Sub-Clause (c) of Sec. 19A of the Act reads as below :

(3.) The last line of this clause makes it clear that the Court can direct the defendant to continue to deposit rent in the Court for subsequent months when the same becomes due. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the deposit of rent under Sec. 19A was not proper. It is also made clear that a landlord cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own inaction and make the defendant artificially defaulter in the payment of rent. In the present case, the defendant-appellant, as mentioned above, tendered rent by money orders but the same was refused by the plaintiffs-landlords. The plaintiffs-landlords on being asked, did not disclose their bank account number to the defendant-appellant, so the defendant appellant could not deposit the rent in the bank-account of the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, the defendant had to take shelter of the Court and to deposit rent under Sec. 19A. It is also to be noted that the rent of the disputed premises is only Rs. 3/- p.m. Under such circumstances, the findings recorded by both the lower courts that the defendant committed second default in making payment of rent is perverse.