GOVIND RAM Vs. RAJI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Chittorgarh, dated March 8, 1977 in a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent The rent for the month of Jeth Samwat 2033 was due and payable on June 13, 1976 and the same should have been paid to the plaintiff- landlords or deposited in court, within 15 days of the aforesaid date, under Section 13 (4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The rent for the month of Asad Samwat 2033 fell due on July 12, 1976 and was similarly payable within 15 days thereof.

(2.) On July 17, 1976 the plaintiffs filed an application in the trial court praying that the defence of the defendant may be struck off under Sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act, as the rent for the months of Jeth and Asad Samwat 2033 had not been paid by him within the time allowed by law. On July 24, 1976 the defendant-applicant deposited two months' rent along with an application purporting to have been filed under Section 19-A of the Act. The case of the defendant was that he had paid the rent for the month of Jeth Samwat 2033 in cash to one of the plaintiffs on June 14, 1976 and although he promised to give a receipt for the same on the next day, yet the plaintiff did not give any receipt for the said amount and as such the rent for both the months of Jeth and Asad 2033 was deposited in court on July 24, 1976. The defendant- applicant also filed a reply on August 11, 1976 to the application of the plaintiffs dated July 17, 1976 under Section 13 (6) of the Act and took an identical defence therein. An affidavit was also filed along with the aforesaid reply dated August 11, 1976. The plaintiff filed an affidavit denying the receipt of any amount in cash on June 14, 1976 from the defendant-applicant by way of rent for the month of Jeth Samwat 2033.

(3.) So far as the payment of rent for the month of Asad Samwat 2033 is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties that the same was deposited within 15 days of its falling due The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties in that respect is that the defendant had deposited the amount of rent for two months on July 24, 1976 under Section 19-A and not under Section 13 (4) of the Act. However as the amount was deposited by the defendant-tenant in the very suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, it must be construed to have been deposited under the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Act. It is settled law that if an application has been presented before a proper forum, to which such an application did lie in accordance with law then that application shall not be rendered invalid merely on the ground that the said application purported to have been filed under a wrong provision of law, but it should be construed to have been presented under the appropriate provisions of law in which it did lie before that forum. It cannot be disputed that no payment under Section 19-A could be made while the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was pending in the court between the same parties. Therefore, there could be no difficulty for construing the payment made by the defendant-applicant on July 24, 1976 under Section 13 (4) of the Act, although it was purported to have been made under Section 19-A of the Act.