JUDGMENT 1. - An application under Order 14, Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code for shifting the burden of proof of the issue of default on the plaintiff-land has been disallowed by the trial court, namely the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3 Jaipur City, Jaipur. Against this order dated 19.3.1986 this revision has been preferred. 2. The non-petitioner No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioners for eviction from the rented property on the ground that rent from 1.5.1979 to 31.3.1981 was due and as such tenant had committed a default in payment of rent. The defendants in their written statement took the plea that the rent was tendered/ offered to the plaintiff but he did not accept the same, thereafter rent for 7 months was sent by money order but this was refused by the plaintiff and thereafter rent was deposited under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act). With these pleadings the court framed issues whether the defendants had not committed legal default in payment of rent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the suit for eviction is on the ground of default and as such it is a material proposition in order to disclose that the plaintiff has a right to sue act as such the burden of proving these allegation should be on the plaintiff-landlord. According to him if the burden is placed on the defendants and the defendants do not lead any evidence them the suit of the plaintiff cannot be decreed automatically which means that the plaintiff' has to prove the ground of default in order to get a decree for eviction. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff non petitioner has contended that the facts alleged by the petitioners in their written statement are something within their knowledge and when the fact that rent has not reached the plaintiff stands accepted then it is for the defendants to prove the facts which are within their knowledge and the plaintiff-non-petitioner will have a right to rebut the same. 5. 5. While dealing with the contentions of the parties, I consider it proper to look into section 13 of the Rent Control Act also, which says that no court shall pass a decree in favour of a lard lord so long as the tenant is ready and willing to pay rent, unless it is satisfied that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months. On the basis of this provision of law it can be said that the land lord has to allege and prove this fact, which means that he has to prove that the rent for more than six months has not been paid or tendered. However, when the defendant appears and takes a specific plea that the rent was tendered/remitted by money order or deposited in some other manner so as to say that he cannot be said to be a further in payment of rant, as envisaged by law, then it is for him to discharge the burden of proving the facts which are within his knowledge. In this case if the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff, then he would not get any opportunity of rebutting the specific evidence of the defendants as in his evidence he can only make a general statement that rent was not paid or tendered to him. If he knows the particulars which have been given by the defendant in his written statement be can at best deny them. In other words his evidence would be of a negative character and he would still require another opportunity of rebutting the evidence of the defendant. This procedure is not permissible under the law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that if the defendant does not appear then the plaintiff will have to prove the allegations which he has made in the plaint and this he should be made to do even when the suit is a contented one Here again a difference is to be drawn between an uncontested suit and a contested suit in which the defendant has raised a specific plea about the manner of payment or tender of rent. If the defendant does not appear to contest naturally a decree cannot be passed unless the plaintiff land lord says that the rent has not been paid and a default has been committed in payment of rent. But when he comes and raises a specific defence then the burden of proof is upon him for discharging the same and the plaintiff can have a right to rebut the same. 6. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, provides that whenever any person desires that the court should give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, he must grove that those facts exist. In other words the burden of proof is to be on the plaintiff and he has to discharge it. but when it is of a negative nature, a lesser amount of proof than is usually required may serve the purpose. This proof can also be not necessary on basis of the allegations made by the other party in the written statement. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. the burden of proving a fact which is specifically within the knowledge of any person is upon him. Considering this provision, it can be said that in the present case the fact that the defendant petitioner admits that the rent has so far not reached to the plaintiff landlord amounts to discharge of the negative burden which can be placed on the plaintiff landlord. Now it is for the defendant tenant to prove the facts which are specifically within his knowledge. 7. To take an example, it can be said that under section 13 (1) (e) of the Rent Control Act subletting of the premises is a ground for eviction. This ground has to be alleged by the land lord, but if in a case, transfer of possession by the tenant is admitted or prima facie shown to exist, than the burden of proof that the premises have not subject is on the tenant. 8. In civil matters, it is very difficult to draw water tight compartment so as to say that in all cases in which suit is for eviction on the ground of default, the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff. It always depends upon the circumstances of the case and specially the nature of plea taken by the defendant. 9. In civil matters, it is very difficult to draw water tight compartment so as to say that in all cases in which suit is for eviction on the ground of default, the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff. It always depends upon the circumstances of the case and specially the nature of plea taken by the defendant. 9. In some what close decision can be found in the case of Bishan Singh v. Mahbub Ali, AIR 1948 Privy Council 17 . A suit for declaratory decree cancelling the sale deed and for possession of the land was filed.' These proceedings were compromised. The compromise was to the effect that the balance of the sale price will be paid by the defendant in instalments to he paid through the court. The plaintiff-decree holder came to the court that a decree be passed as the other party has committed a default in payment of instalments it was for held that it was the defendants to prove that the fault was not their and that assuming that the obligation of the defendants was to pay "through Court" and that this meant that they must pay into the Imperial Bank having first obtained a proper voucher from the Court, yet it was still for the defendants to prove that they took all proper and reasonable steps to make such payment but never the less failed to do so. 10. In the present case the court below has rightly placed the burden of proof of issue No. 1 on the defendant petitioners and it cannot be said that it has committed any jurisdictional error so as to call for interference. This revision is dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******