The Court accordingly passed an order that the suit was to proceed ex parte against the appellant.
the tenancy and directing.
On November 14, 1975 this Court granted special leave.
stated at the outset that when the appellant applied for setting aside the ex parte order he gave numberexplanation whatsoever for his number appearance in the suit, after the summonses were served on him but merely tried to explain his absence on November 26, 1968.
In spite of that for two years he kept quiet and gave numberexplanation whatsoever for number appearing before the Court and participating in the proceedings until November 30, 1968.
Thereaf ter there was second appeal to the High Court which affirmed the judgment of the District Judge and maintained the decree passed by the District Judge.
Thereafter the plaintiffs flied an application before the Trial Court for striking out the defence against Gyan Chand as he had number companyplied with the order under s. 13 4 of the Act passed by the Court previously.
Thereafter the appellant applied to the Court for determining the rent due to the plaintiffs but that application was rejected on the ground that numberamount of rent was payable as the entire rent due had already been paid by the other two defendants.
On February 14.
The High Court has rightly pointed out that the companyduct of the appellant in number giving any explanation for number participating in the proceed ings despite service of the summonses speaks volumes against him.
It may be.
Six days later i.e. on September 29, 1975 Ordinance No.
We have already pointed out that the appellant knew very well that the defence had been struck ,out by an order of the Court and had actually joined in the appeal and the revision flied by the other two defendants.
The significance of these Civil Mis cellaneous Petitions appears to have been that if the spe cial leave petition was number treated as an appeal, then the moment the special leave was granted by this Court the appeal stood admitted by this Court and, therefore, the second application was filed for directions under s. 13A of the Act as amended.
After the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who allowed the appeal holding that the defendants were defaulters and accordingly decreed the suit.
The appellant was allowed to file his written statement which he filed on January 27, 1969.
1975 introduced s. 13A by amend ing the Act.
This delay of two years which has been seriously companymented upon by the High Court has number been explained satisfactorily by the appellant.
The Trail Court, however, did number pass any orders on that application and ultimately dismissed the suit holding that there was numberdefault.
of Property Act on the appellant and his two brothers terminating.
The grounds of subletting and personal requirement as alleged by the plaintiffs were, however, held number proved.
26 of 1975 dated September 29, 1975 which was later replaced by an Act.
On December 11, 1975 another Civil Miscella neous Petition was filed by the appellant renewing his prayer for directions to be given by this Court under s. 13A of the Amending Act.
The Court accordingly determined the rent on March 1, 1966 and directed the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.398 75 Paise on or before April 19, 1966.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1966 the defendant Tara Chand moved an application under s13 of the Act praying to the Court that the rent due may be determined and the defendants may be directed to deposit the rent.
On October 28, 1975 the appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition in this Court praying that the Court may issue directions under the newly amended s. 13A c of the Act.
26 of 1975 dated September 29.
On November 30, 1968 the appellant flied an application for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him and this application found favour with the Trial Court and was accordingly allowed.
The Judgment of Y.V. Chandrachud and P.K. Goswami, JJ.
The plaintiffs served a numberice of eviction under S. 106 of the Transfer.
Against this judgment, the appellant filed an applica tion for special leave in this Court on September 23, 1975.
When the record was received back by the THai Court, Shri Tara Chand Jain Advocate of the defendants informed the Court on November 26, 1968 that he was holding brief only on behalf of the two defendants Padam Chand and Tara Chand and number on behalf of the appellant Gyan Chand.
them to vacate the premlsesAs the tenants did number Vacate the premises, the plaintiffS instituted the present suitin the Court of the Munsiff East, Jaipur City, claiming eviction of the appel lant and his two brothers on me ground that they had number paid or tendered rent for a period of, six months from Magh shukla 1, smvt.
The Court accordingly by its order dated December 14, 1966 struck out the defence of the defendants.
was delivered by Goswami, J.S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. gave a separate Opinion.
The defendant appellant along with his two brothers Padam Chand and Tara Chand had taken on lease a shop at a monthly rent of Rs.60/ from the plaintiffs respondents as far back as September 1, 1961.
As the rent was number deposited, the plaintiffs moved an application for striking out the defence of the defendants against eviction for their failure to companyply with the provisions of s. 13 4 of the Act.
FAZAL ALl, J. This appeal by special leave involves a question of law regarding the ambit and.scope of s. 13A of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 as amended by Ordinance No.
The shop was situated in Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur City Rajasthan .
The appeal arises in the following circumstances.
