The appellate Court held that on the facts proved by the respondent, the three defaults had been companymitted by the appellant, and so, he was entitled to a decree for ejectment.
It is against the decision of the learned single judge in second appeal that the appellant applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court.
From the judgment and decree dated July 30, 1962, of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Regular S. A. No.
The finding of the trial Court on the said issue as well as on the other issues framed by it was in favour of the appellant.
In the result, the respondents suit was dismissed.
648/ on account of rent due up to the said date and the said payment was accepted by the respondent without prejudice.
1053/ to companyer the period from November 1, 1957 to November 30, 1958 which was due from him.
At the date of the first hearing of the suit in the trial Court, the appellant deposited Rs.
14 of 1963.
In other words, he denied that there was any default, and resisted the respondents prayer for his ejectment.
On these findings, the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the respondents claim for ejectment was allowed.
The appellant denied the respondents claim and alleged that the respondent was number entitled to claim ejectment against him by virtue of the provisions of section 13 1 a of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent arid Eviction Act, 1950 Act XVII of 1950 hereinafter called the Act .
On these pleadings, the learned trial judge framed four issues, the principal issue being whether the appellant had companymitted three defaults of two months within the period of 18 months in the payment of rent ?
This appeal was heard by a learned single judge of the said High Court and was dismissed.
The appellant challenged this decision by preferring a second appeal before the Rajasthan High Court.
The respondent then preferred an appeal in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The last ground is that the respondent had claimed eviction in the trial Court on the basis of alleged number payment and numbertender of payment of rent from December 2, 1958, but the First Appellate Court and the High Court setup a new case for the landlord by taking into companysideration the alleged defaults prior to December 2, 1958 and number relied upon by the landlord himself.
The appellants request for leave to prefer an appeal under Letters Patent was rejected by the learned Judge.
S. Pathak and S. N. Andley, for the respondent.
In the said petition, the appellant has taken six grounds of appeal against the decision of the High Court.
His case was that the appellants tenancy had expired on December 1, 1958 by efflux of time, but the appellant nevertheless failed to deliver over possession of the premises to the respondent.
He also pleaded that by virtue of the fact that the respondent had accepted rent paid by the appellant, he had waived his right to evict him.
The main point which the appellant wanted to urge before this Court was in regard to the companystruction of section 13 1 a of the Act read with section 13 4 , but as we have already indicated, we do number reach the stage of dealing with the merits of this point, because we axe satisfied that the material statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent is entitled to companytend that the appellant may have obtained special leave from this Court on the strength of what he characterises as misrepresentations of facts companytained in the petition for special leave.
March 4.
The terms of the lease provided that the appellant was to pay to the respondent the agreed rent every month and in case of default for three months, the respondent was entitled to evict the appellant before the expiry of the stipulated period which was five years, and in that case he was entitled also to claim the rent for the remaining period.
He, however, purported to deposit a lump sum of Rs.
The appellant was permitted to use the said premises for his Oil Mill.
That is the basis on which a decree for ejectment was claimed by the respondent against the appellant.
The judgment of the companyrt was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. It is number necessary to deal with the merits of the points which the appellant wanted to raise before us in this appeal because we are satisfied that the respondents prayer that the special leave granted to the appellant should be revoked, is well founded.
These premises were let out to the appellant by the respondent under a rent note executed on December 8, 1953.
C. Setalvad, S. T. Desai and Naunit Lal for the appellant.
223 of 1961.
He alleged that he had received the rent from the appellant up to October 31, 1957 and that thereafter the appellant had defaulted in the payment of rent in spite of repeated demands, and that even at the date of the suit he was in arrears of rent and had failed to pay the house tax according to the agreement.
On May 2, 1959, the respondent sued the appellant for ejectment in the Court of Munsif, East Jaipur City.
The appellant is a tenant of the premises in suit which are owned by the respondent.
