Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1825 (RAJ)

Om @ Om Prakash v. Abdul Salim

2005-07-19

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This can be said to be a writ petition filed just to abuse the process of the Court because of the simple reason that by this writ petition, the petitioner wants to submit that he has not been asked by the Court to deposit the interest amount over the arrears of rent (total Rs. 1,230/-) in a proceeding for eviction of petitioner from the rented premises. 3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court determined the interim rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 @ Rs. 600/-per month. That was the last paid rent of the premises. According to the petitioner, the trial Court calculated the arrears of the rent upto the date of filing of the suit, i.e., 08.03.2000 on the basis of monthly rent @ Rs. 600/-per month. The trial Court specifically ordered that the rent of 36 months prior to the date of filing of the suit is due in the tenant and, therefore, he should deposit the arrears of rent amounting to 35x600=Rs. 21,600/-and the interest over it amounting to total Rs.1,890/-The trial Court specifically ordered that this is the determined rent (arrears of rent and interest) and this amount of Rs. 23,490/-be deposited by the defendant-petitioner within 15 days as required by the provisions of Section 13. 4. The trial Court, thereafter in the same order, specifically passed the order under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1950 and enhanced the rent of the premises from Rs. 600/-to Rs. 900/-per month w.e.f. the date of filing of suit, i.e., on 09.03.2000. The trial Court also in impugned order directed the petitioner to pay the rent to the landlord @ Rs. 900/-per month from the date of suit. From this period, i.e., 09.03.2000 till the order of the trial Court dated 111.2003, according to tenant, the trial Court should have determined the interest over the rent and should have asked the petitioner tenant to pay interest to the landlord. For this grievance the petitioner preferred appeal and this writ petition. 5. 900/-per month from the date of suit. From this period, i.e., 09.03.2000 till the order of the trial Court dated 111.2003, according to tenant, the trial Court should have determined the interest over the rent and should have asked the petitioner tenant to pay interest to the landlord. For this grievance the petitioner preferred appeal and this writ petition. 5. The petitioner preferred this writ petition and only argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the tenant petitioner should have been directed to pay interest upon the rent, which fall due after the date of institution of the suit and no other point was pressed. 6. The petitioner is tenant and is liable to face the serious consequence of striking of his defence against the eviction in case he fails to pay the determined arrears of rent with interest or if he fails to pay the monthly rent during the pendency of the suit as ordered by the trail Court. The defence of the tenant cannot be struck off if the Court has not determined the rent under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950. Nor the defence of the tenant can be struck off on the ground that though the trial Court has not calculated the interest while determining the rent, still the tenant should have deposited the interest over the rent. Still the petitioner-tenant has grievance against the order of the trial Court dated 111.2003 by which petitioner tenant was not directed to pay the interest over the rent amount. The plaintiff landlord has no grievance, as is apparent from the fact that the order of the trial Court dated 19th November, 2003 has not challenged by the landlord-plaintiff , who could have asked for the relief of award of interest against the tenant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner tenant is liable to pay the interest over the rent for the period from the date of filing of the suit, i.e., 08.03.2002 to the date of determination of the rent, i.e., 19th November, 2003. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is possibility that landlord may say that he is entitled for the interest over the enhanced rent, i.e., over Rs. 900/-per month and not only over Rs. 600/-per month, (which in fact, he has not demanded and further even landlord has not demanded the more interest from the petitioner). 7. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is possibility that landlord may say that he is entitled for the interest over the enhanced rent, i.e., over Rs. 900/-per month and not only over Rs. 600/-per month, (which in fact, he has not demanded and further even landlord has not demanded the more interest from the petitioner). 7. The abuse of process of Court as stated above is because of the reason that the Court can understand that no-one will file a petition for increase of his liability and more particularly when consequences in default are grave. The petitioner if had any bona fide, he could have offered the said petty amount Rs. 1,230/-to the landlord and he could have requested the trial Court itself for allowing him to deposit more amount than as ordered by the trial Court, but making it a ground to challenge the order of the trial Court by filling appeal where the appellate Court is required to summon the landlord and may have to summon the record of the trial Court (which may serve the real purpose of the tenant, to prolong the litigation), are facts fully exposed the petitioner. Assuming for the sake of argument that the trial Court should have determined the interest over the arrears of rent from the date of filing of the suit till the date of order of determination of the rent also as may be required under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 and for this purpose this Court in the facts of cases may have held that the Court is required to determine the interest for the entire due period till the date of determination of rent, that does not mean that this gives tenant an opportunity to multiply the Court proceedings. The grievance of the petitioner against the orders of the two Court below cannot be a bona fide rather it is a total luxury, which only petitioner can afford, but he must know that for this luxury he may have to pay also. The interest @ 6% over Rs. 600/- reducing interest for the period from 08.03.2000 to 19th November, 2003 according to learned Counsel for the petitioner himself is Rs. 1,230/-. The petitioners this writ petition is for getting the relief for paying Rs. The interest @ 6% over Rs. 600/- reducing interest for the period from 08.03.2000 to 19th November, 2003 according to learned Counsel for the petitioner himself is Rs. 1,230/-. The petitioners this writ petition is for getting the relief for paying Rs. 1,230/-to the landlord, which has not been ordered by the trial Court and which has not been demanded by the plaintiff . In fact, the petitioner has asked a relief for non-petitioner. The petitioner not only challenged the order of the trial Court by filing the appeal, but has preferred this writ petition and the writ petition consists of 45 pages in all and if any notice is issued to other party then certainly he will suffer more loss if he engages an advocate to contest this writ petition. 8. Since, the petitioner is willing to pay the interest for this period, therefore, the petitioner is directed to deposit the interest, which he may calculate over the rent for the period from 08.03.2000 to 19th November, 2003 and he may deposit the interest amount by calculating the amount of interest on the basis of Rs. 600/- per month. 9. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the State Legal Services Authorities within a period of two months from today.