M/S. HAZARILAL SEDHRAM Vs. SETH SURYAKANT MAHAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Alwar on 24.11.1982, by the which the order of the trial Court dated July 8, 1980 striking out the defence of the petitioner was upheld.

(2.) IT will suffice to state for the purpose of this revision petition that a suit for rent and eviction was filed by the plaintiff/non-petitioner on the basis of default in payment of rent by the defendant-petitioner from 1.7.1979 to 30.6.1979. The petitioner contested the suit. The trial Court determined the rent on July 4, 1979 under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") at Rs. 1,722 and interest at Rs. 185/- totalling to Rs. 1,907/-, which was to be deposited by the petitioner. This amount was deposited by the petitioner but the monthly rent for the months of July, August and September, 1979 was deposited by the petitioner on 15.10.1980. The trial Court, therefore, held that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent for the months of July and August, 1979. Therefore, the defence of the petitioner was struck out by the trial Court vide its order dated 8.7.1980.

(3.) SHRI J.P. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner landlord contends that the suit was filed on the ground of default and also for fixation of standard rent as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. It is, therefore, asserted that even though the amount of provisional rent was determined by the trial Court, but since the suit was not filed only on the ground of default and dispute regarding fixation of standard rent has yet to be determined by the trial Court therefore, the suit did not come to an end and is still pending in the trial Court. It, therefore, contended that so long as the suit is pending in the Court, even though the trial Court has determined the rent etc. under the provisions of sub-clause (3) of Section 13 of the Act and the defendant-tenant has deposited the same within time, still he is liable to pay the monthly rent as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act till the suit finally comes to an end. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court, passed in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 42 of 86, Yogendra Sharma v. Narain Das, on the reference made on January 13, 1987. It is, therefore, contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have rightly held that the petitioner has committed default and, therefore, his defence has been struck off in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.