NANAG RAM COMPANY Vs. JAI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the above named petitioner-defendants (tenants in the suit) against the Order dated 6. 11. 1995, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 4, (Junior Division), Jaipur City, Jaipur in Case No. 5/87, whereby the application of the non-petitioner plaintiff for amendment of the suit u/o. 6 R. 17 CPC was allowed by the trial Court vide its impugned order referred to above. Briefly stated that Jai Kumar, non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for rent and ejectment under Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the petitioners, M/s. Nanag Ram & Company & Anr. and Nanag Ram, Bhola Nath, Suresh Kumar & Hari Narain are the proforma defendants. The plaintiff sought ejectment of the petitioner- tenant on the following grounds : (A) That the disputed shop premises is required reasonably and bonafidely by the plaintiff for his business. (B) That the defendants-tenants have committed second default in payment of rent for the period 1. 3. 76 to 31. 12. 77 i. e. for 22 months. It was alleged that in the earlier suit No. 158/71, the tenant has availed the benefit of payment of arrears of rent u/s. 13 (A) of the Act. (C) The tenant has caused substantial damages to the property.

(2.) IN their written statement, the petitioners denied the averments of the plaintiff by contending inter alia that since the tenants had been continuously depo- siting the rent in the first suit No. 158/71, which is still pending in accordance with the order of the trial Court and since the entire rent for the disputed period stood deposited in accordance with law and hence nothing remained due to be paid towards rent and hence the petitioners could not be termed as defaulters. Para 6 of the written statement reads as under : *** (D) That on 7. 11. 1978, the petitioners-tenants submitted an application in the second suit i. e. the present suit whereby they requested the trial Court for determination of the provisional rent u/s. 13 (3) of the Act with a further prayer that, that amount already deposited by them in the earlier suit No. 158/71 be permitted to be adjusted in the present suit and if any amount is still found due, the same may be determined and the defendants were willing to deposit the same. The petitioners sought a specific direction from the trial Court as to in what manner and in which suit, future rent was to be deposited.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before this Court and the said revision petition (earlier petition) No. 165/85 came to be disposed of vide order of this Court dated 8. 7. 1985 as referred to above.