DAULAT RAM Vs. LAKHU MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for ejectment.

(2.) Appellants Daulat Ram and his two sons Deo Raj and Madan Ram instituted a suit against Lakhu Mal and Sobhagmal for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment, on the allegation that the defendants had taken on rent the plaintiffs' three shops in the town of Barmer at a certain rent, but in proceedings relating to the fixation of standard rent the rent of two shops Nos. 9 & 10 was fixed at Rs. 20/- p.m. from 1-7-49 and that of shop No. 21 was fixed at Rs. 12/- p.m. from 1-9-49. It was alleged that the rent had fallen in arrears to the extent of 258/3/- and the defendants were not prepared to vacate the shops in spite of notice. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 258/3/- and also prayed that the defendants be ejected. The suit was instituted on 2-7-53.

(3.) The defendants pleaded that they were ready and willing to pay rent and claimed certain deductions about the remittances which they alleged they had made. They also made an application that the court should determine the arrears, which they were willing to pay with costs and interest, and relieve the defendants from the liability of ejectment. The learned Munsif determined that a sum of Rs. 393/7/- was due to the defendants and the amount was paid by the defendants within the period permitted by the court. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit by placing reliance on Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The plaintiffs filed an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge Balotra. They filed a second appeal which came before a learned Single Judge of this Court. It was contended before the learned Judge that the protection afforded by Section 13 (4) was not available to a tenant who was in arrears on more than three occasions for a period of 2 months each within a period of 18 months. The learned Judge was of opinion that the decisions of this Court were not uniform as to the interpretation of Section 13(4) and referred the following question for decision to a division bench:-