KRISHAN MURARI AGRAWAL Vs. MADHO LAL TAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a defendant in a suit for eviction which has been filed by the plaintiff -landlord -Madho Lal, on the ground of default in payment of rent alleging that he had inducted the defendant -petitioner in the suit premises fixing the rent at the rate of Rs. 800/ - per month which he has failed to pay. The suit premises is a Godown situated inside the Chowk of a 'Haveli', Mishrarajaji Ka Rasta in which the defendant -petitioner is said to be carrying business of making kites in the Godown. In view of Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the trial Court (being the Court of Civil Judge -Junior Division West, Jaipur City, Jaipur) had to determine the rent which was last paid by the defendant -tenant to the plaintiff -landlord.

(2.) HOWEVER , the defence case of the petitioner inter alia is that although he was inducted as a defendant to use the Godown by the plaintiff -landlord, the agreed rent which he was required to pay to the landlord was only Rs. 150/ - per month as this was the rent last paid by him. It is an admitted position that the tenancy between the parties is merely oral in nature as there is no chit of documentary proof in the form of rent receipt or any other document to believe either the case of the plaintiff -landlord or the tenant as to what exactly was the last rent paid by the defendant to the landlord -respondents/plaintiff and this is the bone of contention between the parties before the trial Court as also in this revision which has been preferred by the defendant -petitioner against the order of the First Appellate Court which interfered with the order of the trial Court and fixed Rs. 800/ - as the rent last paid by the defendant -tenant to the plaintiff -landlord.

(3.) IT is quite apparent from the averments and the counter averments that there is no impeachable evidence in case of either parties in regard to the actual rent which was last paid by the defendant -petitioner to the plaintiff -respondent. In absence of any documentary evidence in this regard, it cannot be accepted that the house tax receipt which was paid by the landlord to the House Tax Authorities could be treated as a conclusive piece of evidence in support of the their case that Rs. 800/ - was the last rent paid by the defendant -tenant. It is no doubt true that the market rate currently prevalent in the locality may be much more than Rs. 150/ -, but that cannot be taken into consideration as the Courts below were duty bound to record a finding as to what exactly was the last rent paid by the defendant -petitioner to the plaintiff -respondent.