Skip to content


Salig Ram Vs. Narottamlal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Civil Reference in S.B. Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 267 of 1970
Judge
Reported in1971WLN118
AppellantSalig Ram
RespondentNarottamlal and ors.
Cases ReferredVishwanath Singh v. Gopilal
Excerpt:
.....(control of rent & eviction) act, 1850 - section 13(1)(a), (4) & (6)--suit for eviction on ground of default--defendant raises plea of no default and does not deposit arrears of rent on 1st day of hearing--whether his defence be struck out.;in vishwanath singh v. copilal 1970 rlw 223 : 1970 wln 466 - over ruled by this judgment. ehargava j. took the view that if in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed such default then the court cannot strike out his defence under section 13(4) on his failure to deposit the arrears of rent on the first day of hearing and his failure to pay future rent month by month in accordance with that clause unless the question of his having committed..........(6) for non compliance of sub-section (4) in a case where a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed default in payment of rent as contemplated, by section 13, sub-section (1)(a) of the act.2. the reason why this reference became necessary is that in vishwanath singh v. gopilal 1970 rlw 223 : 1970 wln 446 : over ruled by this judgment bhargava j. took the view that if in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed such default, then the court cannot strike out his defence under section 13(4) on his failure to deposit the arrears of rent en the first day of hearing and on his failure to pay future rent month by month in accordance with that clause unless the question of his having.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narayan, C.J.

1. Lodha J., has referred the following question to this Division Bench:

Whether in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-Sec., the defence against eviction cannot be struck out under Sub-section (6) for non compliance of Sub-section (4) in a case where a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed default in payment of rent as contemplated, by Section 13, Sub-section (1)(a) of the Act.

2. The reason why this reference became necessary is that in Vishwanath Singh v. Gopilal 1970 RLW 223 : 1970 WLN 446 : Over ruled by this judgment Bhargava J. took the view that if in a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 a tenant takes the plea that he has not committed such default, then the court cannot strike out his defence under Section 13(4) on his failure to deposit the arrears of rent en the first day of hearing and on his failure to pay future rent month by month in accordance with that clause unless the question of his having committed defaults is first determined and it is held that he has actually committed default. Lodha, J. was of the opinion that this view is incorrect and that all that is required for the applicability of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 is that the suit for eviction must have been filed on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) with or without any other grounds referred to in that sub-section, and that Sub-section (4) does not contemplate determination of the question whether or not the tenant has committed default as envisaged in Clause (a) of Section 13(1).

3. Section 13(4) runs as follows:

(4) In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section, the tenant shall, on the first day of hearing or on or before such date as the court may, on an application made to it, fix in this behalf, or within such time, not exceeding two months, as may be extended by the court, deposit in court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of six percent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable upto the date of deposit and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.

4. We are of the opinion that all that is required for the applicability of Sub-section (4) is that the suit for eviction must have been filed on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section. A suit is said to be based on a particular ground if the plaint contains an allegation that that ground subsists. Sub-section (4) would therefore be applicable even in a case where in the plaint a false allegation is made that the tenant has committed default as envisaged in Clause (a) of sub-Section 13(1).

5. If the tenant has actually paid the full amount of rent to the landlord he can raise a dispute about it on the first day of hearing and the court shall determine under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 whether the allegation made by the tenant is true.

6. If the tenant has tendered rent to the landlord who has failed to accept it and the case of the tenant is that he is not a defaulter on that account he is not absolved from the payment of the amount of rent tendered and not accepted illegally by the landlord. From the wordings of Sub-section (4) we are of the opinion that the Legislature intended that in such a case the tenant should pay the rent which is still due to the landlord irrespective of whether it was tendered and was not accepted.

7. If the tenant has made a deposit under Section 19-A he can point this out in his application made on the first day of hearing and the court can direct the payment of rent already deposited under Section 19-A to the landlord. The tenant will not be required to pay over again the amount of rent which he has already deposited under Section 19-A.

8. It will thus be seen that the interpretation put by Lodha, J. on the words of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 flows directly from the language used by the Legislature and does not lead to any anomaly.

9. We accordingly hold that the interpretation put by Lodha J. is the correct interpretation and overrule the view taken on the point by Bhargava J. in Vishwanath Singh v. Gopilal 1970 RLW 223 : 1970 WLN 466 : Over ruled by this judgment.

10. The reference is answered as indicated above.


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