JUDGMENT
I.S. Israni, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Alwar on 24-11-1982, by which the order of the trial court dated July 8, 1980 striking out the defence of the petitioner was upheld.
2. It will suffice to state for the purpose of this revision petition that a suit for rent and eviction was filed by the plaintiff/non-petitioner on the basis of default in payment of rent by the defendant petitioner from 1-7-1979. to 30-6-1979. The petitioner contested the suit. The trial court determined the rent on July 4, 1979 under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after referred to as “the Act”) at Rs. 1,722 and interest at Rs. 185/- totalling to Rs. 1,907/-, which was to be deposited by the petitioner. This amount was deposited by the petitioner but the monthly rent for the months of July, August and September, 1979 was deposited by the petitioner on 15-10-1980. The trial court, therefore, held that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent for the months of July and August, 1979. Therefore, the defence of the petitioner was struck out by the trial court vide its order dated 8-7-1980.
3. The contention of learned Counsel Shri P.C. Jain appearing for the petitioner is that the only ground for eviction in the suit filed against the tenant was on the basis of default. It is, therefore, stressed that as soon as the amount of provisional rent was determined by the court and the same was deposited within the specified time by the tenant, the suit so far as eviction is concerned, comes to an end and thereafter the tenant is not liable to continue to deposit the monthly rent as provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act till the suit pending on other grounds is disposed of. It is, therefore, contended that the amount of rent and interest provisionally determined by the trial court was deposited by the petitioner within time, thereafter he was not liable to deposit further rent for the months of July, August and September, 1979. Since he was not liable to deposit the rent for these months, therefore, he cannot be held to have committed default in payment of rent, en account of which his defence has been struck of. Reliance has been placed on two S.B. judgments of this court in Siya Sadan v. Sagarmal Modi 1982 RLR 304 and Shyam Lal and Anr v. Upbhokta Sahkari Samitl Ltd. 1982 RLR 1005.
4. Shri J.P. Goyal, learned Counsel appearing for the non-petitioner land-lord contends that the suit was filed on the ground of default and also for fixation of standard rent as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. It is therefore, asserted that even though the amount of provisional rent was determined by the trial court, but since the suit was not filed only on the ground of default and dispute regarding fixation of standard rent has yet to be determined by the trial court, therefore, the suit did not come to an end and is still pending in the trial court. It is, therefore, contended that so long as the suit is pending in the court, even though the trial court has determined the rent etc. under the provisions of sub-clause (3) of Section 13 of the Act and the defendant tenant has deposited the same within time, still he is liable to pay the monthly rent as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act till the the suit finally comes to an end. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this court, passed in S B. Civil Second Appeal No. 42/86 Yogendra Sharma v. Narain Das on the reference made on January 13, 1987. It is, therefore, contended that the trial court as well as the appellate court have rightly held that the petitioner has committed default and, therefore, his defence has been struck of in accordance with the provision of Section 13 of the Act.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the order of judgments of both the lower courts. It is evident that when the suit is filed by the land-lord only on the sole ground of default and the court determines the provisional rent and interest etc., which is deposited by the defendant-tenant within the prescribed time, the suit itself comes to an end as nothing more has to be done by the trial court in the suit. Therefore, in such a suit it can be said that the proceedings came to an end and therefore the question of tenant’s depositing any further monthly rent as prescribed under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act does not arise. However, the situation becomes totally different when the suit is filed not only on the basis of default, but some other grounds or disputes are also raised in the same, e.g. apart from the default there may be controversy regarding payment of house tax, electric, water charges or fixation of standard rent may be at the instance of land lord or at the instance of tenant, then the suit shall not come to an end on determination of provisional rent, but will have to continue till the other disputes raised either by the landlord or by the tenant are decided by the court. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the suit comes to an end immediately after the rent amount determined by the court is deposited within time by the tenant. It cannot be said that merely because the provisional rent was determined by the court and the same was deposited by the tenant, therefore, the suit does not continue to be one for eviction and, therefore, the ground of eviction came to an end. This contention of the learned Counsel for the the petitioner is that as soon as the provisional rent amount determined by the court was deposited by the petitioner, part of the suit regarding eviction came to an end and therefore, the petitioner was not liable to deposit any further monthly rent as required under the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. This matter was referred by the learned Single Judge of this court to larger Bench when such plea was raised earlier and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yogendra Sharma (supra) after considering the law on this point including the law quoted by petitioner, came to the conclusion that there can be two different categories of the suit for eviction as has been discussed above; one category is of the suit, which is filed for the sole ground of default as contemplated under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. For this category, when on determination of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act, the payment is made or deposited in the court within time, there remains nothing to be done thereafter and the court has to dispose of the suit finally at that stage and since the suit will not remain pending in the court, the tenant is not required to deposit the rent month by month. It has been further made clear that even in such cases if suit remains pending only for the pupose of depositing the rent, then the tenant has to deposit the rent month by month. The other category is of the cases in which even though the sole ground for eviction is the default in payment of rent, but some other disputes between the parties are also raised in the suit, and in such a case the suit does not come to an end upon determination and payment of rent Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, and this provisional determination of rent has to be decided at a later stage. Therefore, in such suits, since the proceedings continue to be pending in the court, the tenant has to continue to deposit the rent month by month as provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, till the suit is finally disposed of.
6. It is evident that the present case was not filed only on the sole ground of default, but also for fixation of standard rent under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner tenant was liable to deposit the rent in court or pay to the land-lord month by month as provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act.
7. I, therefore, do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order dated November 24, 1982. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs.