AMRIT LAL JAIN Vs. MOHAMMAD HUSSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.1.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Doongarpur whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for shot 'the Act') and ordered striking out the deference of the defendant-petitioner against eviction.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Shambhu Singh Rathore, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner and have very carefully gone through the record of the case.

(3.) THE plaintiff-respondents, therefore, moved an application under Section 13(5) of the Act for striking out the defence of the defendant-petitioner against eviction. That application was resisted by the defendant-petitioner and it was pleaded by him that since he had filed an appeal and the plaintiff-respondent was negotiating the matter to effect the compromise, he did not obtain receipt of the payment of rent. However, no compromise was arrived at. When he brought the matter to the notice of his counsel, he was told that by not obtaining receipt he will be deemed to have committed defaults in payment of rent. The petitioner, therefore, remitted a sum of Rs. 4,440/- by Money Order on 1.4.1997 but it was refused by the plaintiff- respondent. The defendant-petitioner, therefore, deposited the above amount of Court on 8.4.1997 and extra interest of Rs. 250/- was also deposited on 16.5.1997. The petitioner, therefore, pleaded that there was a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner in not obtaining receipt of payment of rent from the plaintiff-respondent. Since the petitioner remitted the above amount of rent by Money Order but it was refused by the plaintiff-respondent and so, the defendant-petitioner deposited the same in Court. Therefore, the defendant-petitioner has not committed any default and if any default is held to have been committed by the defendant-petitioner, the same may be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance of Vishan Dass v. Savitri Devi, 1988(1) Rajasthan LR 1; Govind Ram v. Smt. Raji Bai, 1977 LW 368 : 1978(1) RCR 105 (Rajasthan) and Murlidhar v. Mukand Ram, 1993(2) Rajasthan LR 549.