ORDER
Inder Sen Israni, J.
1. Both the revisions arise out of the same order dt. 7th Oct., 1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dholpur upholding the orders dt. 20-5-1986 passed in Civil Case No. 11/84 and 9/84. Since common point of law is involved in both the petitions, therefore, they are disposed of by this single order.
2. The contention of learned counsel Shri B. K. Sharma appearing for the petitioners is that the non-petitioner tenant has not complied with the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), inasmuch as he has failed to deposit in court or to pay to the landlord rent month by month by 15th of each succeeding month or within such further time, not exceeding 15 days, as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. He has pointed out that according to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, the non-petitioner has to deposit the rent month by month before 15 of the succeeding month, but in the present case the non-petitioner tenant has deposited the rent in advance and thus has failed to deposit the rent month by month as laid down in the Act. It is, therefore, contended that since the non-petitioner has neither paid to the landlord not deposited in the court the rent month by month as laid down in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, therefore, his defence against eviction is liable to be struck off under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act, but both the courts below rejected his plea, therefore, this revision petition has been filed.
3. My attention has been drawn to the case of Firm Kripal Ram Ganeshi Lal v. Vijay Kumar Goyal, a Division Bench judgment of this court, reported in 1986 Rajasthan LR 236, in which it was held that the word ‘shall’ occurring in expression “the court shall order thedefence against eviction to be struck out” in Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act is imperative, mandatory and not merely directory or permissible. It was, therefore, held that striking out defence for not depositing the arrears of rent determined by the court in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act even without extending the time, was mandatory and the court had no power to extend the time beyond 3 months.
4. In the case of Ujjal Singh and Sons v. Rajendra Kr. Kedia, AIR 1986 Pat 162, it has been held that the rent for July had not become due whether the M.O. was sent. Observed that there is nothing in Section 11(1)(d) or Section 13(1) which enables the tenant to send rent in advance. Hence the landlord was justified in refusing to accept the M.O. as he could not accept it in part only (that is for rent in respect of July only). The remission was invalid and could not be availed of by the tenant to save his eviction.
5. In the matter of Ram Saran v. Nathulal, 1984 Rajasthan LR 168, it was held by this court that the findings of lower courts on the question whether the receipt of rent was genuine or not and whether there was sufficient cause made out by the tenant for extending the period for payment of rent could not be interfered in revisional jurisdiction.
6. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel that the provisions of Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act are mandatory and the defence of the non-petitioner-tenant has to be struck out, if the tenant fails to deposit the arrears of rent as determined by the court within the prescribed time, or within the extended time and thereafter also the tenant is liable to deposit the rent month by month by 15 of each succeeding month or within such further time not exceeding 15 days as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. However, in the matter under consideration the tenant has not failed to fulfil any of the obligations as laid down in the Act, but has on the contrary instead of depositing the rent month by month, deposited the same in advance. The anxiety of the legislature inenacting Section 13 was to see that the landlord gets payment every month without unreasonable delay and therefore, a limit for payment of rent was prescribed in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. In its wisdom, the legislature also laid down that if the tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in Sub-section (4) on the date or within the time specified, the court shall have to strike out the defence of the tenant against eviction. This provision has been made to see that if the tenant desires to stay in the rented premises he must pay the monthly rent to his landlord regularly and without fail. If he fails to do so he shall suffer the consequences as laid down in Sub-section (4) and Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act. It is the solutary principle of interpretation of law that if the wording of the section is clear and unambiguous and does not permit more than one interpretation, the court shall not so interpret the section as to over shadow the purpose for which the act was enacted. The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is a beneficial legislation enacted with a view to strike a reasonable balance about the requirements of the tenants for adequate protection against the aggressive designs of greedy landlord to evict the tenant to assure to the landlord, whose normal legal rights were sought to be restricted to see that he receives the agreed rent, lawful increase of the rent and also to evict the tenant who may be guilty of misconduct within certain circumscribed limits. Therefore, when the only circumstance prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Act is that the tenant should pay the rent to the landlord regularly every month within the prescribed limit of time, it cannot be so interpreted to mean that even when a tenant pays to the landlord or deposits the rent in court in advance, he shall be declared to be defaulter in payment of rent and his defence may be struck off. The non-petitioners evidently have committed no default in payment of rent month by month for the simple reason that the rent has been deposited in advance, which is on the contrary is for the benefit of the landlord who gets the rent earlier than it actually falls due.
7. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the contention of the learned counsel has no basis and the non-petitioners have committed no default in-payment of rent and both the courts below have rightly rejected the applications of the petitioner filed under Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act regarding striking out the defence of the non-petitioners.
8. In the result, both the revision petitions are dismissed with costs.