BAJRANG LAL Vs. RAMDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE second appeals have filed by the defendants against the judgments and decrees of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated 26. 9. 86 and 7. 2. 87 respectively by which he dismissed them and confirmed the judgments of the Additional Munsif No. 1, Bikaner, decreeing the suits for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. The questions involved in both the appeals are similar and as such they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to Appeal No. 151 of 1986 may be summarised thus. THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for the recovery of rent and mesne profits with the allegations, in short, that the defendant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent, in previous suit No. 50 of 1975, he was given benefits under Sec. 13 (4), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act'), accordingly, it was dismissed and he has again defaulted in payment of rent for more than 6 months, i. e. , from 1st September, 1978. THE defendant admitted in his written statement that he is in occupation and possession of the suit premises on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 30/-, and in the previous suit No. 50 of 1975, he had been gi\en benefits under Sec. 13 (4 ). THE remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. He has averred that he has not committed any default in payment of rent, on the refusal of his money orders of rent he deposited their amounts in the court, no default has been committed and the suit deserves to be dismissed. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties which was produced, the trial court held that the defendant had committed defaults in payment of rent of eight months, i. e. , October, November and December, 1978 and January, February, April, August and September, 1979 and accordingly decreed the suit for ejectment. This was confirmed by the learned District Judge in appeal, as said above.

(3.) THE main question for consideration in these appeals is whether the amounts of rent so deposited in the court are valid and they can be taken into consideration under Section 19-A (4)of the Act. On analysis, Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 19-A of the Act runs as under:- " (i) where the tenant has remitted the rent by postal money order under clause (a) and the money order is received back by him under a postal endorsement of refusal or unfound, and (ii) where the landlord does not specify a Bank and Account Number under clause (b), or (iii) where there is a bonafide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, (iv) the tenant may deposit such rent with the court within 15 days of the expiry of the period of 10 days referred to in clause (b) and in the case of such oonafide doubt, as aforesaid, within 15 days of the time referred to in sub-section (I), and (v) further continue to deposit with the court any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the premises. "