Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 298 (RAJ)

Pratibha Mishra v. Saroj Kumari

1996-03-19

R.S.KEJRIWAL

body1996
Honble KEJRIWAL, J. – This revision has been directed against the order dated 4.4.1995, passed by Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, confirming the order dated 7.2.1995, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur (East), in Civil Suit No. 460/94 determining the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, (hereinafter refe- rred to as the `Act). (2). The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, should have also been considered while determining the provisional rent by the lower court. The order s have been passed without application of mind. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on Niranjan Lal vs. Nemi Chand & Anr. (1). He submits that initially the disputed property was leased out to one Shri Ashok Kumar at the rate of Rs. 400/-. p.m. under such circumstances, rent cannot be determined at the rate of Rs. 1300/- p.m. (3). On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff non-petitioner submits that both the lower courts determined arrears of rent on the basis of material on record. The petitioner paid rent at the rate of Rs. 1300/- p.m. The receipts duly signed by the defendant petitioner have been placed on record. The defendant petitioner did not produce any documents or any evidence to show that the premises were let-out to Shri Ashok Kumar at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. It is not the case of the defendant petitioner that for the first time the premises were let out to the defendant. He fur- ther submitts that the determination is only provisional. The final rent has to be determined under Section 13(8)(b) of the Act, by the trial Court while deciding the suit itself. Under such circumstances the revision is not maintainable. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Brij Mohan vs. Hargun Das (2). (4). I heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record and the judgments cited by counsel for the parties. I agree with the counsel for the petitioner that while determining the arrears of rent under Sections 13(3) of the Act, Court should also keep in mind the provisions of Section 6 and 7 of the Act and after applying its judicial mind to determine the arrears of rent. I agree with the counsel for the petitioner that while determining the arrears of rent under Sections 13(3) of the Act, Court should also keep in mind the provisions of Section 6 and 7 of the Act and after applying its judicial mind to determine the arrears of rent. In the present case, thou- gh the defendant petitioner has mentioned in written statement that shop was initially let out to Shri Ashok Kumar at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. but no material has been placed in this respect. From the material on record, it cannot be said that for the first time the disputed shop was let- out to the defendant petitioner. The trial Court and the appellante court placing reliance on the rent-receipts duly signed by the defendant-petitioner, came to the conclusion that the rent was paid at the rate of Rs. 1300/- p.m. It is further to be noted that the rent determined by both the lower courts is only provisional rent. Final rent has to be determined under Section 13(8) (b) of the Act at the time of deciding the suit and in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the rent determined and deposited or paid by the defendant peti- tioner is in excess of the amount of rent finally decided as payable by the petitioner, the Court shall in the event of passing a decree for eviction against the tenant-petitioner, on the ground other than the ground of default shall also pass a decree in favour of the petitioner of 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 petitioner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendant is going to suffer any irreparable injury. The lower Courts did not commit any jurisdiction error in passing the impugned orders. (5). Consequently, the revision is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 8.4.1996.