MOTILAL Vs. LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as nobody has appeared on behalf of non petitioner on the last date of hearing being 17-5-2000 and even today.

(2.) By the impugned orders the learned trial Court has made provisional determination of rent under Section 13(3) calculating the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month as claimed by the plaintiff and the learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the same.

(3.) Assailing these orders the learned counsel for the petitioner contends, firstly that there is no material on record on the basis of which the learned trial Court could arrive at a conclusion about the monthly rent of the suit premises being Rs. 150/- per month, on the other hand according to the learned counsel the premises were taken on rent in the year 1963-64 at the rate of Rs. 17/- per month and therefore, the determination is bad. Secondly it has been contended that the petitioner had produced on record the receipt of the year 1965 showing the rent to have been paid at Rs. 17/- per month, that was required to be considered prima facie document for arriving at a finding about the correctness of the monthly rate of rent claimed by the plaintiff. Thirdly, it has been contended that the petitioner had produced before the learned lower appellate Court the House Tax Assessment Record invoking the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27, C. P. C. which clearly show that the annual rent of 5 shops was considered to be Rs. 2,400/- and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff about the monthly rent of suit shop of being Rs. 150/- is ex facie wrong. Lastly it has been contended that in any case, in such circumstances some reasonable inquiry was required to be held whether by recording statements of the parties under Order 10, Rule 1, C. P. C. or by permitting the deponents of the affidavits to be cross-examined by the other party. For this proposition the learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court being reported in 1997 (1) RLR 763, Bhagwani Devi v. Kamla Devi and 1992 (2) WLC (Raj) 254, Chhagan Lal v. Ram Babu.