SHANTI LAL Vs. SHIV PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the revisions arise out of the same order dt. 7th Oct., 1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dholpur upholding the orders dt. 20-5-1986 passed in Civil Case No. 11/84 and 9/84. Since common point of law is involved in both the petitions, therefore, they are disposed of by this single order.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel Shri B.K. Sharma appearing for the petitioners is that the non-petitioner tenant has not complied with the provisions of S.13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), inasmuch as he has failed to deposit in court or to pay to the landlord rent month by month by 15th of each succeeding month or within such further time, not exceeding 15 days, as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court under Sub-Sec. (3) of S.13 of the Act. He has pointed out that according to the provisions of Sub-Sec. (4) of S.13 of the Act, the non petitioner has to deposit the rent month by month before 15 of the succeeding month, but in the present case the non-petitioner tenant has deposited the rent in advance and thus has failed to deposit the rent month by month as laid down in the Act. It is, therefore, contended that since the non-petitioner has neither paid to the landlord nor deposited in the court the rent month by month as laid dawn in Sub-Sec. (4) of S.13 of the Act, therefore, his defence against eviction is liable to be struck off under Sub-Sec. (5) of S.13 of the Act, but both the courts below rejected his plea, therefore, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) My attention has been drawn to the case of Firm Kripal Ram Ganeshi Lal v. Vijay Kumar Goyal, a Division Bench judgement of this court, reported in 1986 Rajasthan LR 236, in which it was held that the word 'shall' occurring in expression "the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out" in Sub-Section (5) of S.13 of the Act is imperative, mandatory and not merely directory or permissible. It was, therefore, held that striking out defence for not depositing the arrears of rent determined by the court in Sub-Section (4) of S.13 of the Act even without extending the time, was mandatory and the court had no power to extend the time beyond 3 months.