Ram Gopal vs Sampati Bai

Rajesh Balia, J.—These two appeals arise out of the suit filed by Sampati Bai against Ram Gopal for eviction from the suit premises which are situated at Nagaur, and for arrears of rent. The suit of eviction was based on the ground that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months before the filing of the suit. According to the palintiff, the suit premises were let out on June 25,1973 to the defendant on rend @ Rs. 342/- P.M. On an application moved by the defendant for fixation of the standard rent, the court determined Rs. 250/- as standard rent of the suit premises on May 13, 1975.

The defendant has made payment of the rent only up to Asoj Vadi 8 Samvat 2030 and no rent thereafter has been paid. The total amount of rent due @ Rs. 250/- for 48 months was calculated as Rs. 12,000/- and after deducting Rs. 3384/- deposited during the proceedings of determination of standard rent, a sum of Rs. 8616/- was claimed due as arrears of rent.

The defendant denied the allegation that any sum of rent is due to the landlord-plaintiff. Healleged that the rent of Rs. 13,000/- has paid by him from June 25,1973 to July 11,1977 as per details furnished in Para-4 of the written statement. He also stated that Rs. 1000/- has been deposited in the Nagaur Court covering the rent upto Posh Vadi 8 Samvat 2034.

The trial Court framed the following issues:

1 vk;k izfroknh us 35 ekl dk fdjk;k vnk ugha fd;k ftlesa og dkuwuu fMQksYVj gks pqdk gS o bl fcuk; ij dCtk nqdku ikus dk eqLrd gS ih-

2 vk;k okfnuh p<+s fdjk;s ds : 8616@& o C;kt ekfld izfroknh ls ikus dk eqLrd gS ih

3 vk;k izfroknh us nqdku eruktk dks eSllZ jke xksiky p.Md dks fcuk okfnuh dks Lohd`fr ds lc ysV dj nh ftlls bl fcuk; ij okfnuh dCtk nqdku ikus dh eq''rd gS ih

4 vk;k okfnuh }kjk fn;k x;k uksfVl voS/k gS ftlls fdjk;knkjh lekIr ugha gksuk ekuk tkosxk ftlls nkok dkfcy [kkfjt ds gS Mh

5 vk;k izfroknh us LVs.MMZ jsUV dk;e gksus ds i''pkr~ bdjkjukek o gd okfnuh rdeksy dj fn;k o mldh iqLr ij fdjk;k tek fd;kA Mh

6 vk;k okfnuh dh uh;r fdjk;k c+kus dks gksus ls ;g nkok wB fd;k gSA

7 nknjlhA

The trial Court found that defendant had defaulted in payment of 35 months rent, it also found that defendant has failed to prove the amount paid on various dates and found in favour of the plaintiff that, an amount of Rs. 8616/- was due to the plaintiff as arrears of rent. The plaintiff/s did not produce any evidence regarding his plea of sub-letting. That was decided against him.

Thus the trial Court found the defendant defaulter within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 (for short ''the Act'' hereinafter), and also found a sum of Rs. 8616/- as due to the plaintiff as arrears of rent until the filing of the suit. On its conclusion the suit for arrears of rent was decreed for a sum of Rs. 8616/- of rent upto the date of the suit and Rs. 1259.75 as interest thereon. It also allowed interest @ 6% on the aforesaid sum of the principal amount of Rs. 8616/- from the date of the decree to realisation.

However, the suit of the Plaintiff for eviction was dismissed on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 13(3)(4) and (6) of the Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for eviction not withstanding that he was a defaulter. Though, there is no reference under judgment Under Appeal, but from the record it is apparent that on May 6,1988, the Court determined the amount of rent and interest u/s 13(3) of the Act at Rs. 2000/-, which amount was deposited by the defendant and he has deposited subsequent rent every month until the decision of the suit on February 29,1980.

Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree both the plaintiffs as well as defendant have filed the aforesaid two appeals. While the plaintiffs have challenged the dismissal of the suit of eviction, the defendant has challenged the decree for arrears of rent and interest thereon.

First coming to the plaintiffs Appeal No. 80/80, there cannot be any doubt that in view of the clear provision of Section 13(6) of the Act, when the court has determined the amount payable u/s 13(3), of the Act and compliance thereof has been made in terms of Section 13(4) of the Act, no decree for eviction on the ground of default can be passed. From the record of the case, it is apparent that the defendant Ram Gopal now represented by his legal representative has complied with the requirement of Section 13(4) and as no other ground is there on which a decree of eviction can be passed, the trial court was right in dismissing the suit of eviction.

Therefore, I find no force in appeal No. 80/80, and it is hereby dismissed.

Now coming to the appeal No. 37/80 filed by the defendant-tenant, who died during the pendency of the appeal and now represented by his legal representatives.

From the perusal of the judgment and evidence produced in this case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in arriving at its finding on issue Nos. 1,2 and 5. The findings on these issues are affirmed and decree for arrears of rent and interest thereon passed in favour of the plaintiff is maintained. Accordingly, the appeal No. 30/80 is also dismissed.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of both the appeal.