JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal has been filed by the defendant-tenant being aggrieved by the grant of decree of eviction in respect of suit premises of a shop situated at Patch Area, Bhilwara. The suit has been decreed in favour of respondent-landlord, inter-alia, on the ground of second default committed in making payment of rent by the tenant-appellant. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 04.08.2007 in Civil Suit No.15/2002 (193/2001) on the ground of second default for the period 26.08.2000 to 25.08.2001, for a period of ten months. The appeal filed by the tenant-defendant assailing the judgment and decree of the trial court also dismissed by the lower appellate court while dismissing the appeal No.23/2008 (Amba Lal v. LR's of Mishri Lal & Ors.) . 2. Being aggrieved of these two concurrent judgment and decree, the defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court, which has been heard for admission today. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, Mr. K.C. Samdaria relying upon a decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Chandra v. Sri Kishan reported in 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 111 submitted that even in the second suit filed by the landlord, the provisional rent is required to be determined again as provided under Section 13 (3) of the Act. He further submitted that since the first suit filed by the plaintiff-landlord being Civil Suit No.385/1992 was decided on 22.09.2000 in which giving benefit of first default as per Section 13 (6) of the Act of 1950, the eviction was not ordered and in the first appeal against that order by the landlord, namely, Appeal No.25/2000, it was dismissed on 30.07.2004 during the pendency of the said appeal, there was no default in payment of rent by the defendant-appellant. He, therefore, submitted that the present suit being Civil Suit No.15/2002 (193/2001) filed by the plaintiff on 20.09.2001 was not even maintainable for the alleged second default committed by the tenant-appellant for the period 26.08.2000 to 25.08.2001. He, therefore, submitted that the present suit being Civil Suit No.15/2002 (193/2001) filed by the plaintiff on 20.09.2001 was not even maintainable for the alleged second default committed by the tenant-appellant for the period 26.08.2000 to 25.08.2001. He further relied upon a Apex Court's decision in the case of Shiv Dutt Jadiya v. Ganga Devi reported in AIR 2002 SC 1163 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that second suit for recovery of rent falling due during pendency of appeal which was subsequently withdrawn, was not tenable as the tenant is not required to pay same rent twice over personally to the landlord or to tender same in one of modes prescribed by Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 1950. He, therefore, submitted that since the period for which second default was alleged to have been committed from 26.08.2000 to 25.08.2001, during the period when the Appeal No.25/2000 filed by the respondent-plaintiff was pending, and, therefore, the subsequent second suit even was not maintainable and same deserves to be dismissed. He further submitted that the suit has wrongly been decreed by the learned trial court and the said decree has further been upheld by the lower appellate court and, therefore, the present second appeal deserves to be allowed by this Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the defendant-appellant admittedly committed second default in payment of rent for the period 26.08.2000 to 25.08.2001, which as per the averments made in his written statement (In para 2 of the trial court's judgment dated 04.08.2007) that said rent for 12 months from 26.08.2000 to 25.08.2001 was deposited by Challan No.193/2001 on 22.01.2002 for 18 months, and therefore, on the own showing of the defendant-tenant, there was a second default for the said period 26.08.2000 to 25.08.2001. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, therefore, urged that notwithstanding the requirement of again determination of provisional rent under Section 13 (3) of the Act as per Full Bench decision, which has been discussed by the learned courts below also, the fact remains that consequence of eviction cannot be avoided in cases of second default even though, the period of such second default falls during the period when the appeal against the decision of first suit was still pending and he, therefore, submitted that decree given by the learned courts below in second suit on the ground of second default is unassailable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgments and case laws cited at the bar. 6. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case if Shiv Dutt Jadiya (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant is not applicable in the facts of the present case. There is neither any withdrawal of second/subsequent suit by the plaintiff-landlord nor there is any double payment of rent by the defendant-tenant in the present case. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that subsequent suit was not maintainable, is misconceived and same deserves to be rejected and same is accordingly rejected. The fact that period for which the second default was committed by the appellant-defendant has admitted by himself in his written statement filed in the subsequent suit, wherein he has stated that said rent of eighteen months was deposited in one shot vide Challan No.193/2001 on 22.01.2002. Had the defendant-tenant deposited this rent for this period on month-to-month basis in accordance with law during the contemporary period even as the determination of the rent under Section 13 (3) of the Act in the previous suit, even during the pendency of the first appeal of the landlord, that fact would have been definitely stated by him in such written statement and the evidence of such payment during that contemporary period could have been produced before the learned trial court in the subsequent suit. Nothing of the sort was done, nor any such evidence has been brought to the notice of the Court despite specific query made to the learned counsel for the appellant. Nothing of the sort was done, nor any such evidence has been brought to the notice of the Court despite specific query made to the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the admission of the defendant-appellant that rent for the period 26.08.2000 to 25.08.2001 was deposited by one Challan on 22.01.2002 vide Challan No. 193/2001 is sufficient admission of second default committed by him for this period. There is no escape from eviction decree in case of second default and benefit of first default given as a legislative measure under Section 13 (6) of the Act does not apply in the cases of second default. Therefore, not only the second suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was rightly maintainable but same has also been rightly decreed by the courts below. 7. In view of above discussion, no substantial question of law are arises in the present second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellant-tenant shall hand-over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit shop in dispute to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of two months from today and the appellant-tenant shall also pay mesne profit @ Rs. 3000/- per month till the date of actual handing over of vacant and peaceful possession of suit shop to the plaintiffs. It is also made clear that the appellant-tenant shall not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit premises or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period. Learned counsel for respondent-landlord will give the details of his bank account number in which the arrears or rent or mesne profit, if any, will be deposited by the appellant-tenant. It is made clear that in case, the appellant-tenant do not comply with any of the aforesaid conditions and fails to handover the peaceful and vacant possession within two months from today or fails to pay the mesne profits, then it will be open for the respondents-plaintiffs to get decree passed in their/his favour executed even before the aforesaid period and also to initiate contempt proceedings in this Court.Second Appeal Dismissed. *******