OM PRAKASH VADHWANI Vs. DAVENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of INdia, the petitioner-defendant has prayed for quashing order dated 22.01.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Udaipur City (North), Udaipur in Civil Original Case No.33/1998, by which, application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1950, read with Section 151, C.P.C. was dismissed.

(2.) AS per facts of the case, respondent preferred civil suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as subletting. Defendant-petitioner filed written-statement and, after filing written-statement, trial Court determined provisional rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month vide order dated 16.07.2001. Said order was not complied with, therefore, learned trial Court passed order on 12.07.2002 whereby right of defence was struck off.

(3.) IN my opinion, such conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to make prayer for re-determination of rent because he has failed to comply with the earlier order dated 16.01.2001. Moreover, after passing order dated 12.07.2002 striking off right of defence, the petitioner preferred application for re-determination of rent after eight years. Learned trial Court while observing the above facts rejected the application of the petitioner with cost of Rs.1,000/-. It is significant to note that order dated 16.01.2001 by which provisional rent was determined and order dated 12.07.2002 striking off right of defence are not challenged by the petitioner; and, now, after lapse of this much of time, the petitioner filed fresh application for redetermination of rent under Section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950 which is not permissible in law, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly observed that the defendant-petitioner has filed the instant application only to delay the trial of the suit and dismissed the application with cost of Rs.1,000/-. IN my opinion, no error has been committed by the learned trial Court while rejecting the application for redetermination of rent filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950. Therefore, no interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of INdia is required in this case.