SHAUKAT HUSSAIN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE UDAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To review the judgment 2.8.2010 this application is preferred.

(2.) It is contended by review petitioner that his argument was that the amount deposited as per Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, had to be considered first against the provisional rent determined under Section 13(3) of the Act and the excess amount that is in a tune of Rs. 3840/- in the present case should have been adjusted as advance for the forthcoming months rent as held by this Court in , 1987 (2) RLR 147; 1987 (1) RLR 556; 1987(2) WLN 175 and also by Hon'ble Supreme Court in , AIR 1981 SC 1657. According to counsel for the review petitioner the argument advanced has not been considered by this Court while deciding the writ petition under the judgment dated 2.8.2010.

(3.) From perusal of the judgment sought to be reviewed, it is apparent that the argument as advanced by counsel for the petitioner was considered and adjudicated by the Court. The Court also gave reference of the judgment given in Bimal Chand Jain v. Gopal Agarwal, 1981 AIR(SC) 1657. Suffice it to mention here that the case in hand factually stands on a different footing with the cases upon which reliance is placed. In the case in hand the provisional rent was determined by the trial court for the period from March 1997 to February 2006 and that amount was deposited on 28.5.2006. The trial court found default on part of the petitioner against the rent of March, 2006 and April, 2006. The rent of the month of March, 2006 became due on 15.4.2006 and admittedly till the date aforesaid even the provisional rent as ordered by the court was not deposited. Same was the position with regard to the rent relating to the month of April, 2006. The rent of the month of April, 2006 was to be deposited upto 15.5.2006 but that was not deposited at least prior to 28.5.2006. As such the default for the months of March and April 2006 is quite apparent.