S.S. Vyas, J.
1. This is a landlord's revision petition against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Gangapur City dated January 29, 1983 by which is allowed the tenants' appeal and set aside the order of the learned Munsif, Karauli dated August 4, 1981 striking out their defence against eviction.
2. The plaintiff-landlord brought a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the tenants in respect of the suit premises in the court of Munsif Karauli. One of the grounds made to seek the eviction was that the tenants had neither paid or tendered the amount of rent due from then for more than six months. They, therefore, committed the default in payment of rent under Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as 'the Act'). The suit was resisted by the tenants. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif provisionally determined the amount of rent in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. The arrears of rent so determined were for the period from August 18, 1979 to May 17, 1981 i.e. 21 months. This amount was deposited by the tenants on July 23, 1981 i.e. within three months. However, they filed to deposit the monthly-rent accruing due from May 18, 1981 within 15 days. They deposited the rent for this month also on July 23, 1981 alongwith the amount of rent provisionally determined. The landlord approached the trial court with the request that the tenants defence against eviction be struck out. After hearing both the parties, the learned Munsif struck out the defence of the tenants against eviction. He held that the tenants had failed to deposit the monthly rent of the period from May 18, 1979 to June 17, 1981 Within 15 days. The tenants challenged this order in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge sitting in appeal, reversed the order of the learned Munsif by his impugned judgment dated January 29, 1983. Aggrieved against it, the plaintiff has come up in revision to this Court.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the orders of both the courts-below.
4. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the landlord that the whole approach of the Additional District Judge was erroneous and unsustainable in law. Admittedly, the tenants had not deposited the monthly rent by the 15th day of the succeeding month. Their defence against eviction was, therefore, liable to be struck out. He concession could be granted to the tenants. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court viz Ram Chandra v. Kanak Ram 1980 W.L.N. 125 and Suraj Narain v. Laxmi Devi 1981 W.L.N. 386. In reply, straneous efforts were made to support the impugned order of the lower appellate court. I have taken the respective contentions into consideration.
5. Admittedly, the provisional rent was determined by the trial court on May 21, 1981. It included the period from August 18, 1979 to May 17, 1981. The tenants were required to pay monthly rent thereafter month by month by the 15th day of each succeeding month or within such further time not exceeding 15 days, as may be extended by the court under Section 13(4) of the Act. The monthly rent for the period from May 18, 1981 to June 17, 1981 was deposited on July 23, 1981, though the tender to deposit it was presented on July 18, 1981. However, the fact remains that it was deposited on the expiry of 15th days and thereafter also on the expiry of another 15days. The tenants' defence against eviction was, therefore, liable to be struck out under Sub-section (5) of the Act.
6. It was argued on behalf of the tenants that the months of tenancy, according to the agreement between the parties, commenced on 5th of every Gregorian Calendar. As such the provisional rent ought to have been determined only upto the period ending on May 4,1981. It was wrongly determined for the period upto May 17, 1981. May that it be the order of determining the provisional rent dated May 21, 1981 has stained the finality. If the tenants had any grievance against it, they should have challenged it in the higher court. But it was not challenged. Since, it has became final, its legality cannot be examined now.
7. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, no rent was paid for the period subsequent to May 18, 1981. If the monthly tenancy commences on 5th of every English month, the tenants were required to deposit the rent for the period from May 5, 1981 to June 6.1981 within 15 days of the succeeding month, that is to say by 19th of June, 1981 after deducting the amount, if any deposited by them. But the tenants failed to do so. They have, thus, also committed the default in depositing the monthly rent within 15 days of the succeeding months. The learned Munsif examined the case from all these angles and rightly held that the tenants had committed the default in depositing the monthly rent as envisaged in Sub-section (4).
8. A perusal of the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge shown that he failed to consider the various facts of the problem put before him. In para 9 of his order, the learned Additional District Judge himself held that the tenants had committed the default in depositing the monthly rent. It would be proper to quote him in his own words:
bu ifjfLFkfr;ks es esjh jk; es izfroknh dk fMQsUl LVkbd vkmV djuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugh gksrk gS gkykfd mlus 17&5&81 ls 17&6&81 rd ds ,d ekg dk fdjk;k 23 fnol ds foyEc ls tek djok;k gS---blfy, ek= ,d ekg dk fdjk;k foyEc ls tek djkus ds dkj.k mldh fMQsUl LVkbd vkmV djuk mfpr ugh gS A
And yet, the defence was not struck out. I fail to understand the logic and reasonings adopted by the learned Additional District Judge. It is difficult to agree with him that the defence can not be struck out simply because the tenants have committed only one default in depositing the monthly rent.
9. In order to defeat the eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent, the tenant must obey the directions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. It casts two imperative duties on him. The first is to deposit the rent determined by the court under Sub-section (3) within the prescribed time. The second is to continue to deposit in court or to pay to the landlord month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which determination has been made, by the 15th of each succeeding month or within such further time, not exceeding 15 days, as may be extended by the court. If the tenant fails to fulfill any of these two conditions, he can not escape the penal consequences of his defence against eviction, being struck-out under Sub-section (5). The provisions of Sub-section (5) are again imperative. If the tenant fails to make a compliance of the provisions of Sub-section (4), the court has no option except to order the defence against eviction to be struck out. The court has no discretion in the matter. As soon as the default under Sub-section (4) in there, the penal consequences envisaged in Sub-section (5) will follow. The penal consequences can not be averted or defeated by the tenant of the court. The two decisions of this Court referred to above, cover the present controversy on all its fours. The provisions of Sub-section (4) and (5) have been held mandatory. No concession can be granted to a defaulter-tenant under Sub-section (5).
10. Since the tenants had committed the default under Sub-section (4) in not depositing the monthly rent in the court within the prescribed period, their defence against eviction was rightly struck out of the learned Munsif. The judgment of the lower appellate court is clearly erroneous and can not be maintained.
11. In the result, the revision petition of the plaintiff is allowed with costs. The judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge, Gangapur City dated January 29, 1983 is not aside and that of the trial court dated August 4, 1981 is restored.