MANGAL RAM Vs. CHANDRAVATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendants against an order of Munsif, Hindaun, striking out their defence under sec. 13 (6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950, which was confirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Gangapur City.

(2.) SMT. Chandravati Devi, plaintiff, is the landlord of a shop situated at Hindaun and Mangalram and Kedar Nath, defendants, are the tenants of the shop. The monthly rent of the shop is Rs. 10/ -. In addition to it the tenants have to pay a shop-tax at 50 Paisa per month. The tenancy is monthly in accordance with the Hindi calendar. Rent falls due on Sudi 1 of every Hindi month. The present suit was instituted on 18-9-67 for the recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent due for six months under sec. 13 (l) (a ). According to the plaintiff rent was paid by the defendants upto 16th July 1966. Rent for 12 months from 16-7-66 to 8-7-67 was neither paid nor tendered to the plaintiff. It was admitted in the plaint that a notice was served by the defendants in which it was stated that rent for six months from 19-7-66 to 11-1-67 had been deposited on 25-1-67 under sec. 19 A. The plaintiff sent a notice terminating the tenancy to the defendants on 31-7-67. This notice was served on them on 2-8-67. Rent for 14 months amounting to Rs. 147/- including shop tax was claimed in the suit and it was prayed that the defendants be evicted from the shop on the ground of default under sec. 13 (l) (a ).

(3.) THE first day of hearing in the case was thus 4-12-67. Neither of these defendants made an application on that date to fix a time for depositing in court or paying to the landlord the arrears of rent due upto the date of making the deposit or payment together with interest. Nor did they make any application on the first day of hearing asking the court to determine the amount which was payable by them as arrears of rent. From their application dated 4-1-68 it is quite clear that there was no doubt in their mind that what they were required to deposit on the day of first hearing was the rent from 9-7-67 upto the date of payment. THEre was no dispute whatsoever about it. THE case put forward in the plaint was that there was default in the payment of rent from 19-7-66 to 8-7-67, because the rent for this period was neither paid nor tendered to the plaintiff. THE case of the defendants was that they had tendered this rent to the plaintiff but it was not accepted and therefore it was deposited in court under the provision of sec. 19 A. This rent for 12 months having been already deposited in court the defendants could not be required to deposit it again under sec. 13 (4) even if the plaintiff's allegation that it was not tendered to her was true.