2018 INSC 0560
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8504 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 21338 of 2017)
RAM PRATAP                 … APPELLANT
VERSUS
ANAND KANWAR & ORS.          … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In   this   appeal,   the   appellant   has   questioned   the   legality   and
correctness   of   the   judgment   and   order   in   S.B   Civil   Second   Appeal
No.186/1998   dated   08.08.2016,   whereby   the   High   Court   of

2
Judicature   for   Rajasthan   (Jaipur   Bench)   has   allowed   the   appeal
and   set   aside   the   judgment   and   decree   of   the   courts   below   and
remanded the suit to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance
with law. 
3. The   appellant­plaintiff   is   the   landlord   of   the   suit   schedule
premises,   whereas   the   defendant   is   the   tenant.     The   plaintiff   filed
Suit   No.   357   of   1984   for   eviction   of   the   defendant   from   the   suit
schedule   premises   on   the   ground   of   non­payment   of   rents   under
Section   13(1)   of   the   Rajasthan   Premises   (Control   of   Rent   and
Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the "Rent Act"). 
4. According   to   the   plaintiff,   the   defendant   stopped   paying
monthly   rent   from   01.07.1981   to  30.06.1984.     The   defendant   filed
the written statement contending  that he has been paying the rent
regularly   till   31.05.1983   to   one   Sh.   Onkar   Singh,   who   is   a   close
relative   of   the   plaintiff.   Onkar   Singh   was   issuing   rent   receipts   on
payment   of   the   rent.     The  defendant   also   claims   to   have  deposited
the rent up to 31.12.1989 in the court.   Moreover, it is claimed by
the defendant that the plaintiff with an intention to get the premises
vacated and let out the same to others on increased rent has been

3
harassing   the   defendant   and   his   other   tenants.   He   prayed   for
dismissal of the suit.
5. The trial court vide order dated 20.7.1995 decided the matter
in favour of the plaintiff.   The defendant was directed to vacate the
schedule   premises   and   make   payment   of   arrears   of   rent.     The
defendant filed an appeal against the said order.  However, the first
appellate   court   vide   order   dated   28.02.1998   held   that   since   the
matter was proceeded ex parte due to the absence of the defendant,
determination   of   rent   would   be   an   empty   formality   and   hence,   the
trial   court   has   not   committed   any   error   in   not   determining   the
provisional   rent   under   Section   13(3)   of   the   Rent   Act.   The   first
appellate court accordingly upheld the decree.   The defendant filed
a   second   appeal   challenging   the   said   order.     The   High   Court   vide
order dated 08.08.2016 has held that Section 13(3) of the Rent Act
is   mandatory   in   nature   so   far   as   provisional   determination   of   the
rent   is   concerned   and   without   determination   of   rent   no   decree   of
eviction   on   the   ground  of   default   can   be  passed.       The   High   Court
remanded  the  suit  to  the  trial  court  and  directed  the  trial  court  to
decide the matter afresh within six months from the date of receipt

4
of   the   judgment.     As   noticed   above,   the   defendant   has   questioned
the legality and correctness of the said judgment in this appeal.
6. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant­plaintiff   submits   that   the
defendant   intentionally   did   not   appear   before   the   trial   court   to
defeat   the   process   of   the   court   and   hence   the   court   passed   the
order  to  proceed ex  parte  against the  defendant.   Determination  of
rent would be an empty  formality, which  was being heard ex parte
due   to   the   intentional   absence   of   the   defendant.     The   intention   of
the amended Section 13(3) of the Act was to protect the interest of
the   landlord   in   the   interim   period   when   the   suit   for   eviction   is
pending.   Therefore, the High Court was not justified in remanding
the   matter   to   the   trial   court.     On   the   other   hand,   learned   senior
counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent­defendant   submits   that
Section   13(3)   and   (4)   of   the   Act   are   mandatory   in   nature.     These
Sections   cast   obligations   on   the   court   and   following   consequences
are also provided thereof under sub­Section (5) or sub­Section (6) of
Section   13.     Unless   such   determination   takes   place,   Section   13(6)
cannot   be  applied  and   a  valuable  right   given   to  a   tenant  would  be
lost.     The   respondents   had   filed   the   written   statement   on

5
08.08.1989   itself   and   the   case   was   continuously   adjourned   for
determination of rent.  As a matter of fact, it is only after a passage
of   three   months   the   tenant   was   placed   ex   parte   and   thereafter,
without  determining  the rent, the order  of eviction was passed.   In
fact,   the   appellant   has   deposited   the   rent   under   Section   19A(4)   of
the Act.     Therefore, the High Court was justified in remanding the
matter.
7. Having   regard   to   the   contentions   urged,   the   question   for
consideration   is   whether   compliance   of   Section   13(3)   of   the   Act   is
mandatory   in   the   suit   for   eviction   on   the   ground   of   default   and
without determination of rent no decree of eviction on the ground of
default can be passed.
8. The   material   facts   are   not   in   dispute.     The   plaintiff’s   suit   for
eviction was filed under Section 13(1)(a) on the ground of default in
payment   of   rent   for   the   period   from   01.07.1981   till   30.06.1984.
The   defendant   filed   the   written   statement   on   08.08.1989.
Thereafter,   the   matter   was   posted   on   different   dates   and   it   was
continuously adjourned for determination of rent.   The case set up
by the plaintiff was that the rent had been enhanced to Rs.15/­ per

6
month,   whereas   the   defendant   has   contended   that   the   rent   was
Rs.10/­   per   month.     The   appellant’s   counsel   remained   absent   on
24.04.1993   and   on   that   date   the   court   proceeded   matter   ex   parte
and fixed the next date on 24.07.1993.   On the following  date, the
case   was   adjourned   as   the   presiding   officer   was   on   leave   and   the
next   date   was   fixed   on   22.09.1993   and,   thereafter,   the   court
proceeded   with   the   suit.     The   court   did   not   frame   any   issues   and
decreed the suit on 20.07.1995.
9. The claim of the plaintiff is that the defendant had committed
default   in   payment   of   rent   for   the   period   from   01.07.1981   till
30.06.1984.     There   was   a   dispute   between   the   respondent   and
Onkar Singh as to title, for which suit was filed by him against the
said   Onkar   Singh.     The   said   suit   was   decreed   on   07.11.1983   and
during the said litigation the defendant was depositing rent in court
under Section 19A of the Act.
10. It   is   evident   that   the   trial   court   without   determination   of
provisional   rent   under   Section   13(3)   of   the   Act   decreed   the   suit.
The   question   which   has   been   raised   by   the   defendant   is   as   to
whether fixation of provisional rent by the trial court under Section

7
13(3) where eviction of a tenant is sought under Section 13(1)(a) is
mandatory or directory.
11. Section 13(1)(a) provides for eviction of  as tenant for default in
payment of rents which is as under:­
“ 13 . Eviction   of   tenants .   –   (1)
Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in
any   law   or   contract,   no   Court   shall   pass
any decrees 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   therefor   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”.
12. Section   13(3)   as   amended   by   Section   8(i)   of   Rajasthan   Act
No.14 of 1976, dated 13­02­1976 reads as under:­ 
“In   a   suit   for   eviction   on   the   ground   set
forth in clause (a) of sub­section (1), with
or   without   any   of   the   other   grounds
referred   to   in   that   sub­section,   the   court
shall ,   on   the   first   date   of   hearing   or   on
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

8
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   the   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   up   to   the   end   of   the
month   previous   to   that   in   which   such
determination   is   made   together   with
interest on such amount calculated at the
rate   of   six   per   cent   per   annum   from   the
date when any such amount was payable
up to the date of determination:  
Provided   that   while   determining   the
amount under this sub­section, 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.”
 
13. It   is   also   necessary   to   notice   Section   13(4),   (5)   and   (6)   of   the
Rent Act, which are as under:­
" 13(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,

9
month   by   month,   the   monthly   rent
subsequent   to   the   period   up   to   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   under
sub­section (3).
13(5)     If   a   tenant   fails   to   deposit   or   pay
any amount referred to in sub­section (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.
13(6)   If   a   tenant   makes   deposit   or
payment   as   required   by   sub­section   (4),
no   decree   for   eviction   on   the   ground
specified   in   clause   (a)   of   sub­section   (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
benefit   under   section   13­A   in   respect   of
any   such   accommodation   if   he   again
makes a default in the payment of rent of
that accommodation for six months."
14. It is evident from Section 13(3) of the Rent Act that the use of
the   word   'shall'   puts   a   mandatory   obligation   on   the   court   to   fix
provisional   rent   within   three   months   of   the   filing   of   the   written
statement   but   before   framing   of   the   issues.     The   language   of   the

10
Section   is   mandatory   and   places   a   duty   on  the   court   to   determine
the   provisional   rent   irrespective   of   any   application   or   not.     If   the
rent   so   determined   by   the   court   is   paid   by   the   tenant   as   provided
under   Section   13(4),   no   decree   for   eviction   of   the   tenant   can   be
passed   on   the   ground   of   default   under   Section   13(1)(a)   in   view   of
Section   13(6)   of   the   Act.     It   is   thus   clear   that   unless   the
determination under Section 13(3) takes place, Section 13(6) cannot
be   complied   with   and   a   valuable   right   given   to   a   tenant   would   be
lost.  The High  Court,  in our  view, has  rightly  held  Section  13(3) of
the Act to be mandatory.
15. In   view   of   the   aforesaid   discussion,   we   are   of   the   view   that
there   is   no   merit   in   this   appeal,   which   is   accordingly   dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.   
  …………………………… J.
          (N.V. RAMANA)
                 
  ……………………………J.
          (S. ABDUL NAZEER)
New Delhi;
August 21, 2018.