Skip to content


Bhanwarlal Vs. Chandra Kanta and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision No. 651 of 1968
Judge
Reported in1969WLN331
AppellantBhanwarlal
RespondentChandra Kanta and ors.
DispositionApplication allowed
Cases ReferredJ.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Excerpt:
.....12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - on 10-11-66 the plaintiffs filed an application that as the defendant had failed to deposit rent month by month for future months as required under section 13(4) his defence should be struck off......the tenant has to deposit the arrears of rent due upto the date of deposit and to deposit future rent month by month till the disposal of the suit. if there is a default in this then the defence against eviction is struck off. section 13a is a special provision relating to pending suits. under this provision the defendant has to apply to the court within 30 days of the coming into force of the amendment act i.e. by 8-7-65. the defendant has to make an application for the determination of arrears of rent due upto date and he is required to deposit these arrears. he is not required to deposit rent from month to month.3. in the present case the defendant filed an application on 8-7-65 for the determination of the arrears of rent. both sections 13a and 13(4) were mentioned in the.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. This is a revision application by the defendant against an appellate order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, holding that the provision 13(4) is applicable to the present suit so far as the eviction on the ground of default is concerned and the provision of Section 13A is not applicable because it was open to the defendant to get benefit under Section 13(4). The trial court held that Section 13A was applicable.

2. The suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction was filed on 8-3-65. Summons on the defendant-applicant was served on 26-3-65 and the first date of hearing was 16-7-65. On 9-6-65 the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Amendment Act 12 of 1965 came into force in which two provisions were incorporated relating to a suit for eviction based on the ground, of default. One was contained in Section 13(4) and the other was contained in Section 13-A. The provision in Section 13(4) was general and was to apply to all suits. The provision under Section 13A was a special provision relating to pending suits. Under Section 13(4) the tenant has to deposit the arrears of rent due upto the date of deposit and to deposit future rent month by month till the disposal of the suit. If there is a default in this then the defence against eviction is struck off. Section 13A is a special provision relating to pending suits. Under this provision the defendant has to apply to the court within 30 days of the coming into force of the Amendment Act i.e. by 8-7-65. The defendant has to make an application for the determination of arrears of rent due upto date and he is required to deposit these arrears. He is not required to deposit rent from month to month.

3. In the present case the defendant filed an application on 8-7-65 for the determination of the arrears of rent. Both Sections 13A and 13(4) were mentioned in the application. The trial court determined the arrears of rent on 24-11-65 and gave time upto 3-1-66 to the defendant for depositing them. This amount was duly deposited. On 10-11-66 the plaintiffs filed an application that as the defendant had failed to deposit rent month by month for future months as required under Section 13(4) his defence should be struck off.

4. Section 13A is a special provision relating to pending suits. As was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh : (1961)ILLJ540SC whether there is a conflict between a special provision and the general provision the special provision prevails over the general provision and the general provision applies only to such cases which are not covered by the special provision.

5. On behalf of the respondents it was argued that part of the provision of Section 13(4) relating to the deposit of future rent month by month as contained in Section 13(4) is not inconsistent with the provision contained in Section 13A and therefore the provision under Section 13(4) should also, be given effect to. I am unable to accept this argument. The relevant part of Section 13A runs as follows:

13-A. Special provisions relating to pending and other matters-- Notwithstanding anything in Section 13, Sub-section (1)(a), or Sub-section (4) I and the proviso thereto or Sub-section (5) as they existed before the commencement of the amending Act:

(a) no court shall, in any proceeding pending on the date of commencement of the amending Act, pass any decree in favour of a landlord for eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, if the tenant applies under Clause (b) and pays to the landlord, or deposits in court, within such time such aggregate of the amount or rent in arrears, interest thereon and full costs of the suit as may be directed by the court under and in accordance with that clause.

(b) in every such proceeding, the court shall, on the application of the tenant made within thirty days from the date of commencement of the amending Act, notwithstanding any order to the contrary, determine the : amount of rent in arrears upto the date of the order as also the amount of interest thereon at six percent per annum and costs of the suit allowable to the landlord and direct the tenant to pay the amount so determined within such time, not exceeding ninety days, as may be fixed by the court; and on such payment being made within the time fixed as aforesaid, the proceeding shall be disposed of as if the tenant had not committed any default.

6. The effect of making payment under Section 13A(b) is given under Section 13A(a). If payment under Section 13A(b) is made then Section 13A(a) provides that no court shall pass any decree for eviction on the ground of nonpayment of rent. If payment under Section 13A(b) is made the tenant cannot be evicted on the ground of default. Section 13A(a) is not subject to Section 13(4). It cannot therefore be said that Section 13A is not inconsistent with the provision contained in Section 13(4), The provisions under Section 13(4) cannot be, applied to a case governed by Section 13A.

7. I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order of the appellate court and restore the order of the trial court. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //