Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1126 (RAJ)

RAVINDAR PARIHAR v. NARAIN SINDHI

2017-05-02

JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. The instant first appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 18.9.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 5, Kota. 2. Brief facts noticed are that the respondent plaintiff filed a civil suit on 11.7.2002 for eviction of the tenanted shop and also for recovery of three years' rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month. It has been stated in the suit that the tenanted premises was rented by the plaintiff on 4.1.1997 at a rent of Rs. 3000/- per month. It has been stated that a written agreement was executed in which it was agreed that the rent for the period from 4.1.1994 to 3.1.1997 shall be payable @ Rs. 800/- per month and it has also been written in the agreement that if the shop is not vacated after completion of 3 years, plaintiff shall be entitled to recover rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month. It has been stated that an oral request was made to the defendant after 4.1.1997 for vacation of the premises but the shop was not vacated and thus the rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month was required to be paid. But, the rent has not been paid at such rate and it has been stated that defaults have been made in payment of rent. The plaintiff landlord has also prayed for decree of eviction on the basis of personal necessity. It has also been stated that on 29.11.2001 plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant asking him to make payment of rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month from 4.1.1997. It has also been stated that on 28th May, 2002 another notice for vacation of premises and payment of rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month has been asked for. 3. The present defendant appellant filed reply and have categorically stated that the so-called agreement was insufficiently stamped and being an unregistered document, is inadmissible in evidence. It has also been stated that the rent which was agreed to be payable is Rs. 800/- only and he signed in the agreement/rent deed wherever the plaintiff wanted him to sign and that he has not read the agreement and, therefore, the so-called agreement/rent deed mentioning payment of rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month on account of non-vacation after 3.1.1997 is not enforceable being against public policy. 800/- only and he signed in the agreement/rent deed wherever the plaintiff wanted him to sign and that he has not read the agreement and, therefore, the so-called agreement/rent deed mentioning payment of rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month on account of non-vacation after 3.1.1997 is not enforceable being against public policy. It is alleged by the defendant that even the plaintiff accepted that the rent deed is not enforceable and, therefore, accepted rent @ Rs. 800/- upto June 1997 and issued receipt to the defendant. The defendant has categorically denied the factum of default and has given details with reference to sending a money-order and thereafter sending of notice for giving information about Bank Account on 13.10.1997 and thereafter deposition of rent under Section 19(a) and 19(cc) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950. It has also been pleaded by the defendant in his reply that the issue with reference to rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month has already been decided in a suit between the parties numbering 222/2001 and appeal against the said judgment & decree is still pending. 4. On the basis of pleadings, initially 8 issues including the issue of relief, were framed, and thereafter three additional issues were framed during the proceedings. 5. On behalf of the plaintiff respondent, statements of plaintiff PW-1 Narain and PW-2 Sugna Ram were recorded and on behalf of the defendant, defendant himself has been examined. 6. On the basis of pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, issue Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were decided against the defendant and issue Nos. 2, 2A, 2B and 2C were decided against the plaintiff and ultimately the trial court did not accept the claim of bona fide and reasonable necessity of the plaintiff, however, claim of rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month has been allowed by the trial court which has been made payable from the date of filing of the suit and accordingly decreed the suit partially in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment & decree of learned trial court, this appeal has been filed by the defendant. 7. 3000/- per month has been allowed by the trial court which has been made payable from the date of filing of the suit and accordingly decreed the suit partially in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment & decree of learned trial court, this appeal has been filed by the defendant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contended that the finding of learned trial court with reference to issue No. 1 is untenable as the rent note, marked as Ex.-1A dated 4.1.1994 could not have been read in evidence, because the said document is a lease agreement and is liable to be on required stamp paper and ought to be a registered document, and since the same was insufficiently stamped, it could not have been read in evidence. Learned counsel also contended that the trial court failed to consider a very important aspect that when a tenant moves to take a premises, he is always under coercion of the landlord and the mentioning of rent to be increased from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 3000/- after three years is an illegal condition and contrary to Section 6 of the Rent Control Act. It has further been contended by the learned counsel that the finding of learned trial court that since the issue has already been decided in earlier suit, same still acts as res judicata is totally misplaced and against the provisions of law as it is on record that the said judgment and decree has already been appealed against and it is also settled law that since the said decree and judgment has not attained finality, the same cannot act as res judicata, and contended that the judgment & decree dated 18.9.2007 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent contended that judgment and decree passed by the trial court after analysing the evidence and material on record, does not require any interference by this court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The trial court found that the document Ex.-1A dated 4.1.1994 was executed between the parties which was witnessed by two persons wherein it was agreed by and between the parties that the premises in question was given on rent @ Rs. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The trial court found that the document Ex.-1A dated 4.1.1994 was executed between the parties which was witnessed by two persons wherein it was agreed by and between the parties that the premises in question was given on rent @ Rs. 800/- for a period of three years and if after 3.1.1997 the tenanted premises was not vacated, then the rate of rent would be @ Rs. 3000/- per month, and it is an admitted fact that the appellant never paid rent @ Rs. 3000/- to the respondent though he was under obligation to do so under the agreement/rent note executed by him with the respondent. The trial court also took into consideration the judgment and decree passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div) No. 1, North Kota, in suit No. 222/2001 between the parties wherein also the court directed to pay rent to the landlord @ Rs. 3000/- from 4.1.1997 onwards, and once the issue was settled in earlier litigation, the trial court correctly found that the same is not required to be decided again in the present suit and partially allowed the suit of plaintiff, which in my view does not call for any interference by this court. 11. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.