BHANWAR SINGH Vs. LALIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 22, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Udaipur dated August 21, 1989 by which he has determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Act at Rs. 40,700/- for the period from 1.6.1983 to 1.6.1989 at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month with interest.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in determining the rent at the rent of Rs. 550/- per month despite observing that there is no documentary or other reliable proof to show the last rate of rent particularly when the plaintiff did not deny the remittance of rent at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month for the month of April, 1986. He also contended that the learned trial Court did not take into consideration that the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment has been filed without serving any written notice terminating the tenancy or demanding any rent. He further contended that the learned trial Court has seriously erred to ignore the receipt issued by the plaintiff's uncle showing the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month simply on the ground that the plaintiff alleged that it has been forged. He further contended that the plaintiff's version that the suit premises was let out to the defendant in the year 1981 at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month stands falsified from the water and electricity bills and other documents issued in the name of the defendant on the address of the suit premises during the year 1978-79 and 1979-80. He lastly contended that the suit has been filed for the recovery of Rs. 19,800/- at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month in order to compel the defendant-appellant to become a defaulter.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the defendant is an employee of the Hindustan Zinc Smelter Ltd., Udaipur. No document has been filed by him showing that reimbursement of the rent is being claimed by him on the basis of payment of rent to his landlord at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month and not at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month. It is not his case that he had earlier paid rent to the plaintiff's uncle. The receipt whose photostat is C.20/2, said to have been issued by the plaintiff's uncle, has been denied and described as a forged document by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed photostat copies papers No. C. 16/2-5, of the counterfoils of the receipts issued to the defendant mentioning rent at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month. It is correct that they do not bear the signature of the defendant. It is admitted case of the parties that the tenancy was oral. Neither any rent-note nor any lease-deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It is correct that rent of April, 1986 was sent by money-order at the rate of Rs. 250/- and, admittedly, the money-order was refused by the plaintiff. From these facts it cannot be said that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 250/- per month particularly when the money-order was sent in the month in which the suit itself was filed by the plaintiff. There is no force in the contention that the suit claiming rent at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month has been filed with the sole object of evicting the plaintiff as he would not be able to deposit the huge amount of arrears of rent at this rate. The receipt dated 6.11.1989 shows that a sum of Rs. 22,675.50 was deposited by the defendant in lump sum without taking any time. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed an error in determining the rent at the rate of Rs. 550/- per month. It may be mentioned here that this determination of the amount at Rs. 49,700/- is provisional and subject to final determination under sub-section 7 of Section 13 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.