NARAIN LAL NIRJHAR AND ORS Vs. CHHAGAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants under section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the "said Act") challenging the order dated 15.4.2011 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Fast Track, Bandikui, Dausa (hereinafter referred as the "trial court") in Civil Suit No. 32 of 2000, whereby the trial court has determined the provisional rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month under section 13(3) of the said Act.

(2.) It has been sought to be submitted by leaned Sr. counsel Mr. JP Goyal for the appellants that the impugned order passed by the trial court suffers from illegality inasmuch as the trial court has determined the rent at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month without any material on record. According to him, in absence of any material on record, the trial court was expected to direct the parties to lead evidence under Order-X of CPC and then determine the provisional rent. Mr. Goyal also submitted that the appellants-defendants had made the counter claim for fixation of the standard rent under section 6 of the said Act and the trial court without determining the provisional rent under section 7 of the said Act proceeded to determine the provisional rent under section 13(3) of the said Act, which is not permissible. Mr. Goyal further submitted that not only the provisional rent fixed by the trial court is on very higher side but the calculation of the rent at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month from 1.10.1997 also is illegal inasmuch as the appellants could not be directed to deposit the arrears of rent for more than three years prior to the filing of the suit.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Saransh Saini for the respondent-plaintiff however submitted that the trial court has decided only the provisional rent considering the prima facie evidence on record and the said amount of provisional rent shall be adjusted against the rent that may be finally determined by the trial court in view of section 13(8) of the said Act. Mr.Saini has fairly admitted that the appellants are required to deposit the rent from the date i.e 13.11.1997 and not from the date of 1.10.1997, as the suit was filed on 13.11.2000.