Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohan Lal vs Smt. Vimla Devi (2024:Rj-Jd:11214) on 5 March, 2024
Author: Madan Gopal Vyas
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:11214]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 536/2003
Mohan Lal, aged about 53 years, s/o Sh. Krishan Gopal Mahajan,
r/o Ambedkar Colony, Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
Smt. Vimla Devi, w/o Sh. Babu Lal Ji Khandelwa (Patodiya), r/o
Gulmandi, Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Judgment
05/03/2024
The instant civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under
Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, Act of 1950) by the appellant-
tenant against the order dated 03.07.2003 passed by learned
Additional District Judge (Fast Track No. 2), Bhilwara (hereinafter
referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Civil Suit No. 17/2003
whereby learned Trial Court determined the provisional rent of the
rented premises at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-tenant submits
that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is
contrary to the settled principles of law. It is submitted that as per
Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950, the provisional rent is to be
determined after hearing both the parties. However, in the instant
case, learned Trial Court proceeded ex-parte as the counsel could
not appear for 1-2 hours as he was attending some other Court. It
is further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider
the material available on record. It is submitted that the appellant
[2024:RJ-JD:11214] (2 of 3) [CMA-536/2003]
filed his written statement along with the rent receipts, which
were on record. There is sufficient material available on record to
prove that the last paid rent of the premises is Rs. 150/- per
month. However, learned Trial Court completely ignored this
material aspect of the matter while determining the provisional
rent as Rs. 1500/- per month. Thus, in these facts and
circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the present appeal
may be allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and set
aside.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that the
impugned order is well reasoned and does not call for any
interference.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
5. For the determination of the present appeal, Section 13(3) of
the Act of 1950 is relevant, which is reproduced as under:
"In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of
subsection (1), with or without any of the other grounds
referred to in that subsection, the court shall, on the first date
of hearing or on any other date as the court may fix in this
behalf which shall not be more than three months after filing of
the written statement and shall be before the framing of the
issues, after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on
record provisionally determine the amount of rent to be
deposited in court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. Such
amount shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was
last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant may
have made default including the period subsequent thereto up
to the end of the month previous to that in which such
determination is made together with interest on such amount
calculated at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date
when any such amount was payable up to the date of
determination:
[2024:RJ-JD:11214] (3 of 3) [CMA-536/2003]
Provided that while determining the amount under this
subsection, the court shall not take into account the amount of
rent which was barred by limitation on the date of the filing of
the suit."
(emphasis supplied)
As per the provisions of Section 13(3), provisional rent is to
be determined after hearing both the parties and on the basis of
material available on record.
6. A perusal of the material available on record shows that the
impugned order was passed ex-parte. Further, the impugned order
does not in any manner deal with the aspect of last payable rent.
Learned Trial Court was duty bound to consider the rival
contentions of the parties and then come to a conclusion.
Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 03.07.2003 passed by the learned Trial Court is quashed
and set aside. The matter is remanded to learned Trial Court to
decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both
the parties and after considering documentary evidence available
on record, in accordance with law, within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of this order.
7. A perusal of the record also reveals that the main eviction
suit is pending since the year 1999. Therefore, learned Trial Court
is further directed to decide the main eviction suit itself within a
period of one year from the date of order instant.
8. A copy of this order alongwith the record be sent to learned
Trial Court forthwith.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
118-CPG/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
