1991 (11) TMI 271 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Suit for eviction, arrears of rent, and possession of the shop.
2. Default in rent payment, subletting the shop, and non-usage of the shop.
3. Application under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises Act for rent payment.
4. Compliance with Section 13 requirements for eviction.
5. Defence struck out, evidence admissibility, and burden of proof.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a tenant, challenged a judgment decreeing eviction, arrears of rent, and possession of the shop. The trial court framed three issues based on rent default, subletting, and non-usage of the shop. The suit was decreed on the rent default issue, leading to the appellant's appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises Act for rent payment. The trial court determined the rent arrears and interest, but the appellant failed to deposit the amount within the specified time under Section 13(4). Consequently, the defence was struck out, and the court proceeded with the suit under Section 13(5).

3. The appellant argued readiness to pay rent during the appeal, but the court clarified that mere deposit due to a stay order did not establish willingness as required by Section 13(1)(a). The court emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory provisions for eviction.

4. The defence being struck out did not preclude the appellant from challenging the evidence presented by the plaintiff. The court considered the plaintiff's witness testimony, including the husband's statement, as reliable evidence of rent default. The appellant's reliance on Bahikhatas was dismissed due to the defence strikeout.

5. The court highlighted the significance of pleadings in civil litigation and the impact of the defence strikeout on the admissibility of evidence. The court found the Bahikhatas unreliable and inconsistent, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim of rent payment. The burden of proof regarding nonpayment of rent was on the defendant, and the court concluded that the plaintiff had established the arrears, justifying the eviction decree.

6. The appeal was dismissed, granting the appellant six months to vacate the shop and pay rent to the plaintiff. The court upheld the trial court's decision based on the evidence presented and the appellant's failure to meet the statutory requirements for eviction.