The significance of these Civil Miscellaneous Petitions appears to have been that if the special 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 Section 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 de creed the suit.
As the tenants did number vacate the premises, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit in the Court of the Munsiff East, Jaipur City, claiming eviction of the appellant, and his two brothers on the ground that they had number paid or tendered rent for a period of six months from Magh Shukla 1.
Thereafter the plaintiffs filed an application before the trial Court for striking out the defence against Gyan Chand as he had number companyplied with the order under Section 13 4 of the Act passed by the Court previously.
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 Section 13 4 of the Act.
On December 11, 1975 another Civil Miscellaneous Petition was filed by the appellant renewing his prayer for directions to be given by this Court under Section 13A of the Amending Act.
On November 30, 1968 the appellant filed 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.
It may be 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 the plaint the plaintiffs also averred that the shop was required by them for their own use and occupation and that the tenants had sublet the shop to Rajasthan Bartan Bhandar without the companysent of the plaintiffs.
On February 14, 1966 the defendant Tara Chand moved an application under Section 13 of the Act praying to the Court that the rent due may be determined and the defendants may be directed to deposit the rent.
When the record was received back by the trial Court, Shri Tata Chand Jain Advocate of the defendants informed the Court on November 26.
On November 14, 1975 this Court granted special leave.
The Court accordingly determined the rent on March 1, 1966 and directed the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.
The High Court has rightly pointed out that the companyduct of the appellant in number giving any explanation for number participating in the proceeding despite service of the summonses speaks volumes against him.
The trial Court, however, did number pass any orders on that application and ultimately dismissed the suit holding that there was numberdefault.
The grounds of sub letting and personal requirement as alleged by the plaintiffs were, how ever, held number proved.
The Court accordingly by its order dated December 14, 1966 struck out the defence of the defendants.
The plaintiffs served a numberice of eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the appellant and his two brothers terminating the tenancy and directing them to vacate the premises.
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.
The Court accordingly passed an order that the suit was to proceed ex parte against the appellant.
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.
Thereafter 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.
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.
The appellant was allowed to file his written statement which he filed on January 27, 1969.
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 filed by the other two de defendants.
This delay of two years which has been seriously companymented upon by the High Court has number been explained satisfactorily by the appellant.
The shop was situated in Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur City Rajasthan .
60/ from the plaintiffs respondents as far back as September 1, 1961.
398 75 paise on or before April 19, 1966.
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.
