ABDUL SATTAR Vs. ASHOK ATRAYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal u/s 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, against the order dated 9. 1. 1991 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, determining the provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month.

(2.) AS per the facts mentioned in the plaint, the defendant -appellant Abdul Sattar was originally tenant of Smt. Heera Bai and Nirmal Das, @ Rs. 200/- per month, since 1976. The premises were purchased by the plaintiff AShok Atray on 26. 11. 1982 and the defendant continued to pay rent of Rs. 200/- per month to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he gave some further additional accommodation on rent to the defendant and thereafter, the rent was increased to Rs. 700/- from 1. 07. 1983 but since the defendant did not pay the rent, the suit for eviction was filed on 3. 6. 1989, on the ground of default in payment of rent and other grounds. Service of summons was effected on the defendant and he filed the written statement on 21. 5. 1990. On 18. 7. 1990, the defendant filed an application u/s 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rent Control Act') before the trial court praying that the provisional rent may be determined, to which no reply was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant wanted to file an application alongwith an affidavit in that support but could not do so by inadvertance, though he had sworn the affidavit on 18. 7. 1990 itself and therefore, the defendant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. with the prayer that the same may be taken on record. The defendant also filed affidavits of Saleem Khan and Jiya Khan on 3. 9. 1990. The plaintiff did not file his own affidavit in rebuttal but filed an affidavit of Shri Govind Narain on 22. 11. 1990. The respondent filed rent receipts of the previous landlord as also bills of electricity and water and a receipt of money order for Rs. 1,000/- for five months, which was refused by the plaintiff.

(3.) THUS, I do not find any force in this appeal. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.