JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel. 1. The learned Munsif, by his judgment dated December 23, 1972 decreed the suit for ejectment against the defendant Mohd. Sadique, who is now represented by the appellant, who are his legal representatives. The learned Munsif held that the suit as instituted was maintainable and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for ejectment as the defendant-tenant has committed default in payment of rent under Section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) (for short the Act'). Aggrieved, the legal representatives of the defendant want in appeal. The learned Civil Judge, Churu dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment of the learned Munsif dated December 23, 1972. Hence this second appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised three contentions before me:- (1) that the lower appellate court has seriously erred in holding that the defendant was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act; (2) that the suit as instituted by the plaintiffs was not maintain- able; and (3) that adequate opportunity was not given to the defendant to lead evidence on the question whether he is a defaulter. 3. Having perused the pleadings and the evidence on record, I am satisfied that the defendant has correctly been held to be a defaulter. The suit as instituted by the plaintiffs is maintainable. Ramnarain v. Kishorelal, 1963 R. L. W. 459 and Nandlal Girdharilal and another v. Gulamnabi Pamalbhai and another, 1972 R.C.J. 889 are of no assistance. So far as the last contention that adequate opportunity was not given to lead evidence, is concerned, suffice it to say that it was neither taken in the memo of appeal under S. 96 C. P. C. nor was it raised before the appellate court. In view of the pleadings relating to the point of default, no evidence could possibly be led by the defendant to prove that he is not a defaulter. 4. No other point was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. As all the three contentions raised by the learned counsel for Appellant are not tenable, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed summarily. 5. Mr. R L. Jangid prays for six months time to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the two shops in question Mr. As all the three contentions raised by the learned counsel for Appellant are not tenable, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed summarily. 5. Mr. R L. Jangid prays for six months time to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the two shops in question Mr. V. D. Calla is agreeable to this. It is, therefore, ordered that the execution proceedings for evicting the defendant from the shops in dispute shall not be levied for six months. The defendant shall give an undertaking in writing before the trial court within 10 days that they will hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the shops in dispute within six months from today. In case the undertaking, in the terms mentioned hereinabove, is not given within the time fixed, the plaintiff-decree holder shall be free to levy execution proceedings for evicting the defendant from the shops in dispute. The appellants shall be liable to pay damages for use and occupation for each of the shops @ Rs. 2 per mensem until the date of delivery of the possession.Appeal dismissed. *******