Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2733 (RAJ)

Ram Gopal Sharma v. Tapadiya Bagichi

2017-12-08

ALOK SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 25.03.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sikar in a civil miscellaneous appeal affirming the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sikar on an application under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1950') determining the provisional rent payable by the tenant to the landlord @ Rs. 1,500/- per month, during the pendency of the suit for determination of standard rent, effective the date of filing of the suit i.e. on 13.09.2000. 2. Determination of provisional rent is prima facie based on evidence before the Trial Court in the application under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950. In the instant case there was prima facie evidence before the trial court for determining the provisional rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. 3. Mr. Amit Jindal counsel for the tenant however submitted that impugned orders are vitiated for having determined the provisional rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month even while in the application under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 the landlord first claimed @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ripunjay Sharma, counsel for the landlord submitted that indeed in the instant case provisional rent was first claimed @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. But subsequently by way of amendment in 2014 it was claimed @ Rs. 1,500/- per month. Prima facie evidence in support of the claim of provisional rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month was placed before the trial court. Counsel further submitted that the amendment to the application under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 seeking provisional rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month as against @ Rs. 1,000/- per month initially sought having allowed by the trial court and that order not being challenged by the landlord, the argument of the provisional rent determined by the trial court in excess of Rs. 1,000/- per month is misdirected and baseless. Mr. Ripunjay Sharma, then pointed out the obvious that aside of lack of merit in this petition on facts, there is no finality to the determination of provisional rent. The amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month is misdirected and baseless. Mr. Ripunjay Sharma, then pointed out the obvious that aside of lack of merit in this petition on facts, there is no finality to the determination of provisional rent. The amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month determined as provisional rent is also not astronomical or excessive to entail the consequence of non payment and resultantly of the defence of the tenant being struck off under Section 13 (5) of the Act of 1950. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. It is well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked only when the orders impugned are perverse, patently illegal or suffer from error of jurisdiction. From the facts on record and submission of counsel, none of the aforesaid grounds for the exercise of this Court's supervisory jurisdiction can be made out. The impugned order is well considered and based on objection consideration at the provisional stage of the material on record. And it goes without saying that the provisional rent paid under the impugned order/s shall be appropriately adjusted with the standard rent finally determined by the trial court. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed.