Judgment:
Mohini Kapoor, J.
1. A learned Judge of this Court, has by his order dated March 19, 1986, observed that there appears to be a conflict of opinion between judges sitting singly and it has become necessary to constitute a larger bench to resolve this conflict. Upon this order a larger bench has been constituted and it has come up before us to answer the questions which have been framed by the learned Single Judge. The points, which have been referred are as under:
(i)Whether in a suit for eviction on the sole ground of default as contemplated under Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, if the tenant deposits the amount determined by the Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act within time whether it is necessary for the tenant thereafter to continue to deposit monthly rent till the disposal of the suit?
(ii) Whether in a suit the tenant deposits the amount determined under Section 13(3) of the Act under the earlier part of the Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act the ground of eviction under Section 13(1)(a) ceases to exist and the suit cannot be proceeded further?
2. A few facts may be looked into. Naraindas respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for rent and eviction against Shri Ram Gopal Sharma (since deceased), who is represented by his legal representatives, who are the appellant and the proforma respondents on the ground of defaults in payment of rent and for recovery of water and electricity charges. The tenant claimed that he had deposited the rent and also alleged that water and electricity charges had been paid to the landlord. The trial court, namely the Addl. Munsif, Ajmer (East), on an application moved by the tenant under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (here in after referred to as the 'Act'), provisionally determined the rent on 16-11-1976 This amount was deposited by the tenant within time as extended by the Court. Thereafter, the landlord alleged that the tenant had not deposited rent month by month as was to be done under the second part of Section 13(4) of the Act. and his defence against the eviction was liable to be struck-out. This application was refused by the trial court but on appeal, the Additional Civil Judge accepted the same and the defence of the tenant against the eviction was struck-out, by order dated 9-11-1982. S.B. Civil Revision No. 20/1983. preferred against this order was dismissed by this Court on 18-5 1983. Thereafter the trial court examined witnesses and after hearing the parties, decreed the landlords' suit for eviction on the ground that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent and was liable to be evicted. This decree dated 15-12-1983, was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Ajmer, by his judgment dated 8-2-1986. The defendant tenants preferred a second appeal before this Court and it is in the proceedings in the second appeal that the above points have been referred to this larger bench.
3. We may state that we have to answer the questions which have been referred to us without deciding as to what is to be done in the particular appeal in which these points have arisen.
4. Section 13 of the Act maybe reproduced in order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties.
Section 13--Eviction of tenants - (1) Not with standing anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months.(3) In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of Sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that Sub-section, the Court shall, on the first date of hearing or any other date as the court may fix in this behalf which shall not be more than three months after filing of the written statement and shall be before the framing of the issues, after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. Such amount shall be calculated at rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which such determination is made together with interest on such amount calculated at rate of six per cent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable upto the date of determination:
Provided that while determining the amount under this Sub-section, the court shall not take into account the amount of rent which was barred by limitation on the date of the filing of the suit.(4) The tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the court under Sub-section (3) within fifteen days from the date of such determination, or within such further time, not exceeding three months, as may be extended by the court. The tenant shall also continue to deposit in court or pay to the landlord, month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which determination has been made, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month or within such further time, not exceeding fifteen days, as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court Sub-section (3).
(5) If a tenant fails to deposit or pay amount referred to in Sub-section (4) on the date or within the time specified therein, the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit.
(6) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by Sub-section (4) no decree for eviction on the ground specified in clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall be passed by the court against him.
Provided that a tenant shall not be entitled to any relief under this Sub-section, if having obtained such benefit or benefits under Section 13-A in respect of any such accommodation if he again makes a default in the payment of rent of that accommodation for six months.
(7) If in any suit referred to in Sub-section (3), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the court shall decide the dispute finally at the time of decision of the suit and may, at that time, pass such orders regarding costs or interest, as having regard to the circumstances of the case, it deems fit.
(8). In case at the time of decision of the suit:
(a) the court finds that the amount of rent provisionally determined by it under Sub-section (3) and deposited in court or paid to the landlord under Sub-section (4) is less than the amount of rent finally decided as payable by the tenant, the court shall pass a decree for the balance amount against the tenant;
(b) the court finds that the amount determined and deposited or paid as aforesaid in excess of the amount of rent finally decided as payable by the tenant, the court shall, in the event of passing a decree for eviction against the tenant on ground other than that set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), also pass a decree in favour of the tenant for such excess amount deposited or paid by him and in the event of dismissing the suit for eviction it shall direct in the decree that such excess amount will be adjusted by the landlord against future rent payable by the tenant.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that a suit for eviction on basis of default in payment of rent, ceases to be a suit on this ground when determination of the rent due under Section 13(3) of the Act is made and the amount so determined is deposited within time in Court, According to him, thereafter the suit remains only a suit for rent and if the tenant fails to deposit rent month by month as provided in the second part of Section 13(4) of the Act, he would not be liable to be evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent. Thus his contention is that a suit for eviction changes its complexion on deposit of rent Under Section 13(3) of the Act and becomes a suit for rent only in which no decree for eviction can be passed. According to him, Section 13(4) of the Act does not specify the period uptil which the rent has to be deposited month by month and as such it should not be taken to mean that the rent is to be deposited month by month till the suit is is disposed but should mean that month by month rent is to be deposited only so long as the suit remains a suit for eviction and not when the suit becomes as a suit for rent alone. According to him when the suit for eviction is on the ground of default alone and no decree for eviction can be passed on this ground when the tenant makes a deposit of rent under Section 13(3), of rent then it is not necessary to deposit the rent month by month.
6. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the provisions of Section 13(4) will continue to apply till such time as a decree is passed in the suit when ever it is dismissal of the suit of the landlord or his claim is accepted. According to him Section 13(4) contemplates two types of deposits; one is rent which has been determined under Section 13(3) and the other is the deposit of rent month by month, subsequent to the period upto which determination has been made, under Section 13(6) of the Act no decree for eviction on the ground of default can be passed only if the tenant complies with both the parts of Sub-section (4) Section 13.
7. With this argument in the back-ground, we shall first look into the decisions which have been cited by the learned Single Judge in his order of reference.
8. In Shyam Lal and Anr. v. Upbhokta Sahakari Samiti 1982 RLR 1005 a suit for eviction was instituted on the ground of default on 14-4-1975 (prior to the amendment of 1975). The defendant appeared and submiteed an application under Section 13(4) of the Act and subsequently submitted an application under Section 13(7) of the Act, saying that he had paid the amount of rent and interest thereon on the first date of hearing so the plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed and as such the same may be dismissed. Even though the court considered that the only controversy between the parties related to the costs and interests but the case was fixed for fixing of written-statement framing of issues and the suit was tried. The learned Munsif decreed the suit but the decree was set-aside, on appeal and the landlord was allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the defendant. The plaintiffs then preferred a second appeal which was allowed and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court was set-aside and the case was remanded to the trial court with a direction to proceed with the suit in accordance with the directions made in the judgment. After remand a prayer was made by the defendant that the application under Section 13(7) of the Act be first decided but the court framed an issue as to whether the defendant is a defaulter. Thereafter the Munsif after hearing the arguments on the application under Section 13(7) dismissed the same. An appeal against this decision was allowed then the plaintiff preferred a revision petition, which came to be decided by this Court. It was held that the 'ground of default ceases to exist when the amount of rent and interest is deposited by the tenant according to Sub-section (4). No trial on the ground of default thereafter is contemplated. Whether the tenant has committed any default or not, need not be gone into in case the tenant conducts himself in the manner, as provided in the first part of Sub-section (4), by depositing the amount of rent and interest within the time allowed by the court. The proviso to Sub-section (7) would show that it is in the nature of the benefit, which has been given to the tenant and no such benefit can be claimed for on second time by the tenant even if he has not committed any default, i.e., even if he has been tendering the amount of rent regularly, but has not been accepted by the landlord and thus as a matter of fact, he may not be a defaulter, as he has been offering rent, but this controversy need not be tried by the court, if the tenant deposited rent and interest on the first hearing or within time allowed by the court. If the suit is based on some other ground along with the ground of default and if the tenant does not deposit or pay rent by fifteenth of each succeeding month, then his defence is liable to be struck off. In the present case the trial court should have expressly asked the defendant as to whether the defendant wants to waive the benefit under Section 13(4) and if the defendant had expressed to waive the benefit the question of default would be determined in the case and the ground of default in that situation would continue to exist and on merits of the question of default, the decision of the suit would be based, but such was not the position in the present case. If the defendant did not want to avail the benefit of Section 13(4) there was no need for him to deposit the amount of rent and interest and there was no need for him to move the application under Section 13(7).
9. In Daulat Ram Sharan v. Gyanchand Jain, SB Civil Second Appeal No. 12/1979, decided on 18-7-1985, G.M. Lodha, J. held that in a suit for eviction based on the ground of default alone, as soon as the amount due and determined is deposited, the ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(a) becomes non-existent and no further trial is contemplated. Thus the view of Justice Jain in Shyam Lal & Another (supra) and the view of Justice Lodha in Daulat Ram's case are similar and there is no conflict of opinion.
10. In Siya Sadan v. Sagar Mal Modi and Ors. 1982 RLR 304, a suit for eviction was filed on the ground of default along with other grounds. The rent was determined and deposited under Section 13-A. Subsequently the tenant committed a default in depositing rent by 15th day of each month. It was held that the defence for other grounds could not be struck down and Sub-sections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section 13 were not applicable. Referring to Section 13-A, it was held that on account of deposit of rent under Section 13-A, the effect of Sub-clause 13(1)(a) disappears and this ground becomes non-existent for all intents and purposes. It was held that in view of Sub-clause (b) of Section 13-A, the ground of default disappears and Sub-sections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section 13 cease to apply to a suit which was based on the ground of default but that ground of default disappeared and the sui proceeded on the other grounds. Emphasis was laid on the words 'proceedings shall be disposed of as if the tenant has not committed any default' used in Sub-clause (b) of Section 13-A. Thus this decision refers to deposit of rent under Section 13-A and not to deposit of the rent under Section 13(4) of the Act.
11. The other relevant decision on this point are Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur v. Smt. Gurdeep Kaur (1983 RLW 210), wherein the implication of Section 13(4) has been considered and it has been held that the tenant has to deposit both the amounts referred to in Sub-section (4), namely the amount determined under Section 13(3) and also the monthly rent, month by month. If he fails to deposit or make payment of either amount, his defence against eviction is liable to be struck out under Sub-section (5). This was a case for eviction on grounds of default as well as the other grounds. Referring to the words of Section 13(3), it was stated that Section 13(3) was applicable to the suit on the ground set-forth in clause (a) with or without any of the other grounds. Referring to Siya Saran's case (supra), it was observed that when Section 13-A applies the effect of Sub-clause 13(1)(a) disappears and becomes non-existent because clause (b) of Section 13-A provides that once the amount in respect of the arrears of rent, interest thereon and cost of the suit due to the landlord, as determined by the court is deposited by the tenant within the time fixed by the court then the 'proceedings shall be disposed of as if the tenant had not committed any default.' It was also pointed out that Section 13-A does not make any provision for making payment of any rent month by month during the pendency of the suit. As such the decision in Siya Saran's case is applicable only where the matter is covered by Section 13-A of the Act.
12. In Suraj Narain v. Smt. Laxmi Devi 1981 RLW 487, the tenant took further time to deposit the rent determined under Section 13(3) of the Act. During this extended time of two months he failed to deposit the rent month by month as provided in the second part of Section 13(4) of the Act. His defence against eviction was struck out and a decree for eviction was passed. The suit for eviction was only on the ground of default in payment of rent. It was held that Section 13(4) was indivisible and it could not be said that if the first part of the payment of rent determined in respect of the arrears is complied with, the suit should be dismissed Section 13(6) of the Act would come to the help of the tenant only if compliance of both the parts of Section 13(4) has been made.
13. In Ramjilal v. Shyamlal 1984 RLW 259, is a case in which eviction was claimed on the ground of default as well as other grounds. The tenant deposited the rent determined under Section 13(3) but failed to deposit the rent month by month. It was held that his defence against eviction was liable to be struck-out as provisions of Section 13(4) and (5) are mandatory.
14. In Ram Saran v. Nathulal 1984 RLW 644, was a case for eviction on grounds of default as well as reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff landlord. In this case, it was held that the words 'shall also continue to deposit' used in Section 13(4) cannot be constructed to come into operation after the extended period for depositing rent under Sub-section (3) is over. The liability of the tenant to deposit or pay the monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which determination has been made under Sub-section (3) arises soon after the passing of the order under Sub-section (3).
15. Professor Krishna Datt Singh v. Pawan Kumar was a case in which ejectment was sought only on the ground of default in payment of rent. In this case the plaintiff claimed rent at rate of Rs. 250/- p.m. The defendant in this case contested the ground of default and also alleged that the rent was excessive aad he prayed for fixation of standard sent under Section (6) of the Act and filed a counter claim regarding fixation of the standard rent. Provisional rent was determined at rate of Rs. 250/- p.m. The plaintiff led his evidence in this case and the defendant instead of leading evidence, moved an application under Section 7(3) of the Act praying that till his counter claim under Section 5 of the Act for fixation of standard rent is disposed, the proceedings in the plaintiffs' suit may be stayed. It was contended that since the amount of rent as provisionally determined by the court under Section 13(3) of the Act had been deposited within the prescribed time, the ground of default as basis of ejectment did not survive and no decree for ejectment could be passed against the tenant and the suit remains merely a suit for arrears of rent. This contention of tenant was negatived by the learned Judge for the reason that the suit brought by the plaintiff landlord was a suit for ejectment on the ground of default and also recovery of arrears of rent and on deposit of rent provisionally determined under Section 13(3) of the Act, the suit does not cease to be suit for ejectment, even though it may be said that a decree for ejectment could not be passed on the ground of default as envisaged under Section 6 of the Act. Thus the suit was held to be suit for ejectment as well as a suit for arrears of rent which could not be stayed under Section 7(3) under which a suit for recovery of arrears of rent alone could be stayed upon payment of provisional rent fixed under Section 7 of the Act.
16. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon B.C. Kame v. Nemi Chand Jain : AIR1970SC981 , but this case is not applicable to the present matter because the tenant had failed to deposit arrears of rent within one month from the service of summons and had not obtained extension of time to make the payment subsequently.
17. Another case relied upon is Shri Hem Chand v. The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. : [1978]1SCR241 , which arises out of Delhi Rent Control Act. The question which arose was whether the landlord is entitled to recover possession in case the tenant does not comply with Section 14(1)(a) or Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was held that if the tenant deposits the rent in accordance with the notice under Section 14(1)(a) or complies with the order under Section 15(1) within one month from the date of the order, the landlord cannot recover possession of the premises on the ground specified in Section 14(1)(a). But if there is non-compliance of both Section 14(1)(a) and Section 15(1), the cause of action of the landlord praying for possession of the premises on the ground of failure to pay arrears of rent survives and the landlord can proceed with the application and make out his case. In both these decisions the question whether the tenant has to continue to deposit rent month by month in order to seek protection against the eviction did not arise. On basis of this decision it can be said that if the tenant fails to obtain protection against the eviction as provided by law the ground for eviction survives and the Court has to adjudicate upon it in order to arrive at a finding as to whether the landlord has been able to prove that ground in order to claim eviction.
18. We have looked into the various decisions of this Court which relate to Section 13(3) to 13(6) of the Act. The object of the provisions of the Act is on the one hand to protect the tenant from the arbitrary whim of the landlord in seeking to evict him but at the same time provides for conditions which if not complied with by the tenant, his right to protection against eviction will come to an end. In order to evict a tenant, the landlord must be able to satisfy on and of the grounds mentioned under Clause (a) to (1) of Section 13 of the Act. A further opportunity is provided to the tenant who has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months from being evicted; if he deposits the rent as provided in Section 13(4) of the Act. Section 13(6) prohibits the passing of a decree on the ground under clause (a), if the tenant makes deposit or payment as required by Sub-section (4). This protection is available to him only on one occasion, meaning thereby that if he has obtained the benefit of this provision or of Section 13-A, he would not be entitled to the same protection again. However Section 13(6) would come to play only if the tenant has complied with Section 13(4) of the Act. Section 13(4) is divided into two parts. The first part is about the deposit of rent as determined under Sub-section (3) and the second part relates to the deposit of rent month by month subsequent to the period to which determination has been made. The time within which the amount is to be paid, and also the period during which this payment or deposit has to be made has been fixed by this Sub-clause itself. Both the parts of Section 13(4) are to be complied with in order to attract the provisions of Section 13(6). It may be mentioned here that in order to attract Sub-clause (3) to (6) of 13 one of the grounds of eviction should be under Sub-clause (a) of Section 13(1) and the existence of the other grounds is optional.
19. The question which arises and has to be answered is whether it is necessary for the tenant to continue to deposit rent month by month till the disposal of the suit when he has deposited the amount determined under Section 13(3) and eviction is on the sole ground of default under Section 13(1) (a) of the Act. It may be stated that if the suit for eviction is based on a number of grounds out of which default in payment of rent is one of them, then the suit proceeds further on the other grounds even after the deposit of rent as determined under Section 13(3) and the tenant is under obligation to deposit rent month by month if he wants to seek the protection of Section 13(6). What will be the position when the sole ground of eviction is under Section 13(1)(a) is to be seen. In our opinion in a suit for eviction in which the sole ground for eviction is Section 13(1)(a), different situations may arise. The landlord claims a certain amount as arrears of rent and the tenant accepts this amount as due and makes payment or deposits the same along with interest as determined under Section 13(3) and upon doing so, there remains no dispute in the suit to be decided by the Court. In such a suit, upon deposit of rent determined under Section 13(3), the Court has to simply dismiss the suit for eviction and other payment of costs as it thinks fit. This is the end of the matter. In such a suit the question of depositing rent month by month as contemplated by the second part of Section 13(4), normally does not arise. But if the tenant seeks time to deposit rent after determination under Section 13(3) of the Act, then as held in Suraj Narain's case (supra) he will have to deposit rent month by month for the extended period, before the suit is finally disposed under Section 13(6).
20. The second category of a suits in which eviction is claimed only under Section 13(3)(a) would be when after the determination of rent under Section 13(3) and deposit of the same, the matter docs not come to an end and there are certain points of dispute, upon which the Court has to adjudicate examples of such situations may be the rate of rent as claimed by the landlord is disputed by the tenant; the period for which the rent is said to be due is not admitted by the tenant; apart from rent the landlord has claimed certain other amounts such as house-tax, charges for other amenities and the same are disputed by the tenant. There can be other similar situations where the suit will net come to an end on deposit of rent determined Under Section 13(3). Inspite of the dispute between the parties, the Court will proceed to provisionally determine the rent under Section 13(3), which the tenant would deposit but the suit will have to proceed in order to determine as to what is the agreed rent between the parties or what amount of rent is actually due or amount under other heads is due to the landlord. The determination made under Section 13(3) is only provisional and it is under Sub-sections (7) & (8), that the Court is required to decide the dispute finally. At the time of the decision of the suit, the Court can hold that the amount provisionally determined is less than the amount of rent finally payable by the tenant or it can arrive at the conclusion that the amount determined and deposited is in excess of the amount of rent finally decided as payable by the tenant and can make appropriate orders for the payment of the less amount or for the adjustment of the excess amount. In this situation, though the suit is for eviction on the ground of default alone, the matter does not come to an end on the deposit of rent as determined by Section 13(3) of the Act and the suit has to continue. This suit does not become a suit for arrears of rent alone but continues to be a suit for eviction. The stage for passing or refusing a decree for eviction is reached only at the time of final decision of the suit and in order to seek the protection of Section 13(6) of the Act, the tenant has to show that he has complied with both the pans of Section 13(4) in order to claim that no dcree for eviction on grounds of default can be passed against him. The suit continues to be a suit for eviction and arrears of rent till a final decision is reached and it cannot be said that upon deposit of rent determined under Section 13(3), the suit for eviction comes to an end and thereafter the suit is for arrears of rent only. The suit for eviction and arrears of rent cannot be divided into two separate suits so as to dismiss the reliefs of eviction and keep the matter about rent pending. The two are inter-related and cannot be bifurcated when the suit is proceeding for determination of any dispute between the parties whether it is as regards the rate of rent or the arrears of rent or any other ancillary matter. The ground of default continues to be a basis of the suit and the suit does not cease to be a suit for eviction on the ground of default.
21. Thus, in our opinion, in a suit for eviction, where the sole basis for eviction is default in payment of rent and there is no dispute about any matter so as to say that the Court has to keep the suit pending in order to decide any other point in issue, then the judgment on basis of admission may be passed as is provided under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC upon deposit of rent as determined under Section 13(3); but in a case where the matters in dispute do not come to an end upon deposit of rent determined under Section 13(3), but there are other matters, which remain to be decided, then the suit has to proceed and such a suit continues to be a suit for eviction as well as for arrears of rent and is not converted in a suit for rent only. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in V.N. Vasudeva v. Kirori Mal Luhariwala : [1964]6SCR181 in which the Delhi Rent Control Act was applicable. The Rent-Controller determined the rent payable by the tenant and directed him to deposit the same under Section 15(1) of this Act. The tenant took a plea that the rent was to be adjusted towarde his fees by virtue of an agreement between the landlord and him. In these circumstances it was held that the order under Section 15(1), to deposit the amount of arrears of rent is final order but is preliminary to the trial of the case and is made only when the rent has in fact not been paid. It is not necessary that there should be trial before passing such an interim order. Even the deposit of rent does not put an end to the trial. Referring to the second part of Section 15(1) which is analogous to Section 13(4) of the Act), it was held that not only the arrears have to be deposited, but rent as it falls due has to be deposited month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. Thus whenever there is any dispute, which remains to be decided after the provisional determination of rent, the second part of Section 13(4) will remain in operation and it cannot be said that in order to seek protection under Section 13(6), it is not necessary for the tenant to comply with the second part of Section 13(4) of the Act.
22. In view of the decission in B.C. Kame1Nemi Chand Jain (supra), it can be said that where a tenant fails to comply with the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act and his defence against eviction is to be struck off, the result is that the ground of eviction as provided under Section 13(1)(a) survives and the Court in order to grant or refuse a decree for possession over the premises has to decide the issue whether the tenant has committed default in payment of rent as contemplated by Section 13(1)(a) and pass the necessary order. Non-payment of rent determined under Section 13(3) or non payment of rent month by month during the pendency of the suit or proceedings would not automatically make the tenant liable to be evicted.
23. In our opinion Siya Saran's case, as seen above is not applicable to cases where the tenant has not obtained relief under Section 13-A of the Act for the simple reason that Section 13-A(b) provides for disposing of the proceedings as if the tenant had not committed any default when the rent fixed by the Court is deposited with the time allowed. There are no such words in Section 13(3) or 13(4) of the Act, so as to bifurcate the reliefs of eviction and arrears of rent and dismiss the first relief as soon as the rent determined under Section 13(3) is deposited and proceed with the suit as if it is simply a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. There is no conflict of views in the decisions in Daulat Ram's case and Shyam Lal's case (supra) These decisions are applicable to the first category of cases as discussed by us and hold good for them. For the second category of cases, we are in agreement with the view taken in N.P Gupta's case (supra).
24. Our answer to the questions referred to above is as under:
(1) As seen above, there can be two categories of suits for eviction, when the sole ground for default is as contemplated under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. The first category is when on the determination of the rent under Section 13(3) and upon payment or deposit of the same, there remains nothing to be done and the Court has to dispose the suit finally at that stage and in such a case the suit will not remain pending and it will not be necessary for the tenant to continue to deposit rent month by month. Even in such cases if the suit remains pending only for the purpose of depositing the rent then the tenant has to deposit rent month by month. In the second category of cases where though the sole ground for eviction is default in payment of rent but there are other matters in dispute between the parties, which do not come to an end upon determination and payment of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act and this provisional determination of rent has to be decided finally at a later stage and in such a situation the suit has to continue even after the deposit of rent determined under Section 13(3) of the Act. In such suits, it is necessary for the tenant to continue to deposit rent month by month as provided by the second part of Section 13(4) of the Act, till the disposal of the suit.
(2) The suit for eviction on the sole ground under Section 13(1)(a) does noes not cease to be a suit for eviction on deposit of rent determined under Section 13(3) and deposit under the first part of Section 13(4) of the Act. The suit has to be disposed finally if no point of dispute remains to be decided between the parties. If the suit has to proceed further for purposes of determination of some controversy between the parties, then the suit continues to be suit for eviction under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and all the provisions for Section 13(3) of 13(8) are applicable to the proceedings.
25. The reference is answered accordingly.