GH MOHD BHAT Vs. PIR YAHYA SIDDIQUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PIR Yahya Siadique, respondent -plaintiff has filed suit for ejectment of Ghulam Mohd Bhat, petitioner -defendant, from a shop situate at Karan Nagar, Srinagar and also for the recovery of Rs. 900/ - as arrears of rent. which is pending disposal in the court of sub Judge (C.JM), Srinagar. During the course of proceedings in the main suit, the plaintiff moved an application on 18 -4 -1983, under sec. 12 (4) of the J & K. Houses and shops Rent Control Act, for issuing a direction to the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,000/ - outstanding against him and further to deposit Rs. 300/ - as monthly rent. The defendant filed his objections to the same. The trial court after hearing both the sides, vide order dated 7 -7 -1983, allowed the application of the plaintiff and directed the defendant tenant to pay arrears of rent from July 1982 till ending March, 1983 at the rate of Rs.300/ - per month, total Rs. 2700/ - within 15 days and also to deposit monthly rent Rs. 300/ - regularly. The defendant aggrieved by this order filed revision petition before this court which he ultimately withdrew but soon after he filed application before the trial court for review of its earlier order requiring him to deposit the arrears of rent. This application was also rejected by the trial court on August 10, 1984. The defendant thus has come up in revision before this court against the said order of the trial court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the trial court while passing the impugned order has completely ignored the authority of this court in case Mahinder Singh Versus Mahinder Singh 1980 SLJ 158 according to which the lease -deed required to be registered under law, if not registered, could not be made a basis for determining the rent incorporated in it and also that the trial court was required first of all to determine the fair rent of the suit shoo as averred by the defendant in his written statement. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, on the other hand, contended that the defendant -tenant has not paid the rent of the suit shop since July 1982 and he has also admitted last rent paid as Rs. 300/ - per month in his pleadings.

(3.) THE trial court allowed the application of the plaintiff -landlord on July 7, 1983, and directed the defendant -tenant to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2700/ - within 15 day of next and also to deposit monthly rent of Rs 300/ - by the 15th day following month. This order was not complied with by the defendant -tenant and he preferred a revision against the said order before this court. He, however, withdrew the said revision petition. He then choose to file a review petition against the above said order of the trial court before that court but his this petition too was dismissed. The Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for an appeal against the refusal of a review. An order rejecting the review may, however, be brought into question in revision but the scope of the revision lies within a very narrow compass, as in such a case, the petitioner has got to justify his contention that in exercise of the jurisdiction the court of the first instance in refusing review, acted illegally or with material irregularity. The illegality shown in this revision petition is two fold, first, that the trial court did not take into consideration the authority of this court in case Mahinder Singh Versus Mahinder Singh (supra) and came to the conclusion regarding fixation of rent on the basis of un -registered lease -deed which was compulsorily registerable under law, and. secondly, that the trial court did not fix the fair rent first as was required under law before ordering the deposit of the arrears of rent in accordance with the rent deed.