Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 707 (RAJ)

Santosh Kumar v. Mulakhraj Singh

2003-05-09

HARBANS LAL

body2003
Judgment Harbans Lal, J.-The instant civil misc. appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (here-in-after referred to in short ‘the Act’) is directed against the order dated 11.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, Distt. Kota in Civil Original Suit No. 1/2000, whereby the provisional rent has been determined Under Section 13(3) of the Act. 2. Briefly stated, therelevant facts are that the respondent landlord instituted a suit on.12.1999 in the court below for eviction on the twin grounds of default in payment of rent and non-user of the shop for last six months with the averments that the suit shop was letout to appellant-defendant w.e.f 2.1997 Rs. 2,500/- p.m. and he failed to make payment of rent after May 1997. 3. The appellant-tenant on the other hand in his written statement denied the averments and pleaded that he had neither taken the suit shop on rent w.e.f 2.1997 nor executed the rent-note on 28.1.1997 and that the suit shop was continuing in his tenancy from the time of his father Manak Chand who had taken it on rent since 1966. He also pleaded that the rent was paid by him upto 3 12.1998 and thereafter the landlord refused to accept the rent. 4. As the suit was also based on the ground of default Under Section 13(l)(a) of the Act, the learned trial Court after hearing the parties and on the basis of the material on record determined on 11.2000 provisional rent Rs. 2,500/-p.m. for the period w.e.f June 1997 to October 2000 amounting to Rs. 1,02,500/-with interest @ 6% p.a. and directed the appellant-tenant either to pay the same to the respondent-landlord or to deposit it within the prescribed period of 15 days and to make payment of future rent month by month by 15th of next month, which order is under challenge in mis appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been contended by and on behalf of the appellant-tenant that the court below has not considered the rent-note which was forged and fabricated on one of the two signed blank stamps which he had given to the landlord-plaintiff in January 1997 when he had taken a loan of Rs. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been contended by and on behalf of the appellant-tenant that the court below has not considered the rent-note which was forged and fabricated on one of the two signed blank stamps which he had given to the landlord-plaintiff in January 1997 when he had taken a loan of Rs. 5,000/-from him, for which he had even instituted a criminal case wherein one of the signe blank stamp was recovered from his possession. It has also been contended that the court below has not considered the fact that the tenancy was old tenancy which was continuing un-interruptedly since 1966 and the rent could not be enhanced to Rs. 2,500/-per mensem. It has, therefore, been prayed that the order of the court below be quashed and set aside and the matter be remitted back to the trial Court for determining the provisional rent afresh after recording the evidence of the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has on the other hand supported the order impugned and has submitted that the order impugned is based on a detailed, proper and legal appreciation of the materials on record and it does not suffer from any infirmity so as to justify interterence by this court in it. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the order impugned. 8. Section 13(3) of the Act casts a duty on the court to determine the amount of rent if a suit for eviction is based on the ground set-forth in clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 with or without any other ground. The rent is to be determined under this sub-section after hearing the parties and on the basis of the material on record. The court has to calculate the rent at the rate at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant had made the default. This determination of rent under this sub-section is provisional subject to adjustments, corrections and modifications subsequently when the suit is finally disposed of The object of this Sub-section (3) is to afford a protection to the tenant and give him one more opportunity to make the payment of the arrears of rent. 9. Ithas been held in Ganesh Lal vs. Laduram (1), that ‘material on record’ includes ‘averments of plaint’. 9. Ithas been held in Ganesh Lal vs. Laduram (1), that ‘material on record’ includes ‘averments of plaint’. In Chagan Lal vs. Rambabu (2), it has been held that the court may examine the parties under Order 10 of the CPC and may also took into the other material on record. The material on record available for determination of the provisional rent may consist of pleading of the parties, their conduct, surrounding circumstances, their examination under Order 10 CPC., if any and other material, if available. 10. In the instant case, the respondent landlord came with a clear case that the suit shop was vacated in the year 1988 by the father of the appellant-tenant as he failed to make payment of arrears of rent for about 4 years recovery of which was waived locking to his long ailment. The suit shop was taken on rent by appellant-defendant w.e.f 2.1997 Rs. 2,500/-per mensem after executing a rent-note in respect thereof on 28.1.1997 and he failed to make payment of rent after June 1997 till the institution of the suit. The plea of the appellant-tenant was that he had not executed any rent-note in favour of the landlord. The court below has discussed all the contentions sought to be raised before this court in sufficient detail and the view taken by the court below cannot be said to be erroneous or un- reasonable. The court below has also considered the fact that the appellant did not make payment of rent Under Section 19-A of the Act if the landlord had refused to accept the rent as pleaded by him. The rent of other similar premises situated in the vicinity has also been taken into consideration while determining the provisional rent. The court below has also considered the pleadings of the parties and all other materials produced before it and I do not find any cogent and valid reason to interfere in the impugned order. The electricity bills which have been produced before me at the time of arguments do not in any way throw any light either on the rate of rent or on the question of rent due and payable by the appellant. 11. In Smt. Bhagwani vs. Kamla & Ors. The electricity bills which have been produced before me at the time of arguments do not in any way throw any light either on the rate of rent or on the question of rent due and payable by the appellant. 11. In Smt. Bhagwani vs. Kamla & Ors. (3), which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the tenancy was oral and the rate of rent was disputed whereas in the instant case the tenancy is based on a rent-note and the rate of rent is also clearly mentioned therein and the signatures on the rent- note are not disputed and the circumstances pleaded by the appellant-tenant have been duly and properly considered by the court below. Therefore, this case is of no great help to the appellant being distinguishable on facts. 12. For the fore-going reasons, therefore, there being absolutely no pith and substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.