Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1986 (RAJ)

Umrao v. Mahesh Kumar

2019-07-17

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-tenant challenging the order dt. 10th April, 2017, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially Trial Court had decided the provisional rent under Section 13 of the Rent Control Act, 1950 vide order dt. 21st March, 2002 and the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal and the same was decided vide order dt. 4th April, 2002, by this Court. 3. Counsel submitted that while deciding the appeal of the petitioner, the appellate Court quantified the amount of rent to be paid and the provisional rent from 5th July, 1996 to 31st March, 2002 for 69 months @ Rs. 75 per month and the provisional rent was calculated as Rs. 5175/-. The interest of Rs. 892.53 was also awarded and as such the total amount of Rs. 6067.53 was to be paid. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed an application before the Court below for correction of the Arithmetic calculation, while stating the fact of payment of 68 months and 26 days and amount of Rs. 5165/- was required to be paid not Rs. 5175/- and further interest was also of Rs. 878.05/- not Rs. 892.53/-. 5. Counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Saransh Saini submitted that for correcting the arithmetic mistake, the Court below was apprised that correct amount calculated was to be deposited and the petitioner further had made it clear that the amount of rent for the month of May, 2002 was to be deposited on 18th June, 2002 and it was within the time prescribed under Section 13(4) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, as the provisional rent is required to be paid within 15 days and such date is to be calculated from 5th day of the month and as such the time was to expire on 19th June and the petitioner had deposited the Rent on 18th June, 2002, for the month of May and as such the Court below was requested to consider the application of the petitioners to modify the order and necessary corrections were required to be made in the figures, which were given to pay rent. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners-Mr. Saransh Saini submitted that the petitioner had explained before the Court that the amount paid, was the actual provisional rent and there was a calculation mistake and such mistake being bona-fide for determining the arrears, the correct figure ought to have been given by the Court below and as such petitioner had not committed any default on which he could be non suited. 7. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Gopal Singh Vs. Smt. Suraj Devi reported in RLR (II) 1987 page 147. 8. Counsel for the petitioners on the strength of the said judgment submitted that the Court below if determines the arrears of rent along with interest and the monthly rent is also deposited within the time which is prescribed, the interest if it is calculated by the Court by mistake and the same is excessive, the necessary orders are required to be passed of recalling the order of the striking out defence and further Trial Court is required to correct the arithmetic mistake in its order determining arrears. 9. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by this Court on 4th April, 2002, has become final and the petitioner was bound with the terms and conditions agreed between the parties and as such there was no error in the order passed by the Court below. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by this Court vide order dt. 4th April, 2002, was further assailed before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition vide order dt. 23rd March, 2007. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the Court of striking out defence dt. 23rd March, 2007 and various orders passed from time to time in the present dispute were challenged up to the Apex Court and the Apex Court refused to interfere in the orders passed by the Court below. 12. I have heard the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. 23rd March, 2007 and various orders passed from time to time in the present dispute were challenged up to the Apex Court and the Apex Court refused to interfere in the orders passed by the Court below. 12. I have heard the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. This Court finds that while Appellate Court had passed the order on 4th April, 2002 and once the order on 4th April, 2002, was passed after both the parties agreed to pay the amount of provisional rent, the order which is sought to be reviewed and rectified, in fact is an endeavor to change the terms of the order which was already passed on 4th April, 2002. 14. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the arithmetic mistake can always be rectified, suffice it to say that the calculation if it has been made from particular period, relating to provisional rent from 5th July, 1996 to 31st March, 2002, there was no scope before the Court below to change the period from 69 months to 68 months 26 days. 15. This Court further finds that the total amount was also calculated of Rs. 6067.53/- and the petitioner made an endeavor to get the said amount changed from Rs. 6067.53/- to 6043.53. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due amount has been paid, however, there has been proper explanation of depositing the rent of May, 2002 on 18th June and it was not such a long delay which could affect the rights of the present petitioner, this Court finds that the Court below has taken into account the requirement of complying with the order and the difference of amount or a petty amount in payment of rent, cannot be a basis to change the order which has been passed by the Court. 17. This Court finds no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Court below and the present writ petition is dismissed.