Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2509 (RAJ)

Sriram Bahal v. Narendra Kaur

2005-09-19

J.R.GOYAL

body2005
Judgment J.R. Goyal, J.-This is a tenants appeal, directed against the order dated 21.07.2000 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur City in Civil Suit No. 109/1999 by which under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act of 1950) provisional rent has been determined. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents - landlord filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the appellant - tenant, inter alia, on the ground of default of payment of rent. It was averred in the plaint that tenancy was oral and no rent note was executed; that agreed monthly rent was Rs. 1,500/-, which was due since 01.08.1996. In the written statement, admitting the tenancy the appellant stated that initially rent was Rs. 250/-per month which was later-on increased to Rs. 550/ -per month and that up to 31.07.1999 he has paid the rent accordingly but no receipt was ever given by the landlord. After hearing the parties, learned Additional District Judge determined Rs. 78,607.50/-as provisional rent (Rs. 70,500/-as arrear of rent for the period from 01.08.1986 to 30.06.2000 at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-per month alongwith interest at the rate of 6% thereon amounting to Rs. 8,107.50). Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, this appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and material placed before me during arguments. 4. It was contended on behalf of the tenant, that there was nothing on record to show that the agreed rent was Rs. 1,500/-per month. On the contrary, initially, the rent was Rs. 250/-per month which was later-on increased to Rs. 550/-per month and up to 31.07.1999 rent has accordingly been paid to the landlord but no receipt was ever given. It was further contended that while determining the provisional rent, the learned Court below did not take into consideration the relevant document i.e., the house-tax record by which it is clear that only Rs. 2,400/-per annum has been shown as receipt by way of rent from the suit premises. It was also contended that when there was no agreement in regard to the tenancy, the parties ought to have been examined under the provisions of Order 10 CPC. 2,400/-per annum has been shown as receipt by way of rent from the suit premises. It was also contended that when there was no agreement in regard to the tenancy, the parties ought to have been examined under the provisions of Order 10 CPC. But in this case, on the strength of affidavits filed on behalf of the landlord, the provisional rent has been determined by the learned Court below. It was also contended that the tenant was employed as a watchman, by which fact, it can be inferred that he was not in the capacity to take the suit premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-per month. In support of these contentions, learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the Judgment s passed by this Court in Smt. Nirupama Ben vs. Devat Singh 1985 RLR 789, Motilal vs. Laxman, 2000 (3) WLC 464 (Raj.) and Smt. Bhagwani Devi vs. Smt. Kamla Devi & Ors., 1997 (1) RLR 763. 5. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the suit premises was let out to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-per month. It was also contended that prior to this tenancy only one room was there which was let out to one Makrand Pathak at the rate of Rs. 700 per month. Thereafter a varandah was constructed and the set of one room and a varandah was let out to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-per month to the appellant. It was further contended that affidavits of the landlord, Mr. Ajay Pathak and Mr. Amarjeet Singh were filed and at the request of the appellant they all were cross-examined on their affidavits, wherein it was proved that the suit premises was let out at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-per month. It was further submitted that the appellant had placed no material to counter the aforesaid affidavits. It was further submitted that in the instant case the Court below has determined provisional rent only and after adducing evidence by the parties, the rate of rent shall be determined by the Court at the stage of final verdict, when Section 13(7) of the Act of 1950 shall come into play. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. It is not disputed that for 400 Sq. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. It is not disputed that for 400 Sq. Ft area there was an oral tenancy in between the parties and no receipt or any other document regarding payment of rent has been produced before the Court below by either parties. So far house-tax record is concerned, it has been shown that income from the rented premises is Rs. 2,400/-per annum but the amount shown is even not in conformity with the case of the tenant, who averred in the written statement that the suit premises was let out at the rate of Rs. 550/-per month. Thus, in my view, house-tax record could not be made the basis for determination of provisional rent. It is an admitted case that the appellant cross-examined the landlord, Mr. Ajay Pathak and Mr. Amarjeet Singh on their affidavits wherein it was stated that the suit premises was let out at the rent of Rs. 1,500/-per month and that the appellant did not place any material, even his affidavit to counter the affidavits filed on behalf of the landlord. Thus, in my view learned Court below had committed no error in determining the provisional rent on the basis of the material on record. It is settled position of law that under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950, rent is determined on provisional basis only, which is subject to the final decision of the suit, as provided under Section 13(7) of the Act of 1950. In this view of the matter, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7. However, in the interest of justice, the appellant is granted fifteen days time to deposit the remaining arrears of rent.