SATYA PRAKASH Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition arises out of an order by the trial court deciding issue No. 2 and certain applications. The trial court has held issue No. 2 against the petitioner defendant. Petitioner defendant was a tenant in two shops owned by plaintiff respondent in terms of rent deed executed on 1.3.85. He was inducted as a tenant but after May, 1992, the petitioner tenant discontinued to pay the rent personally. The tenant wrote a letter to the landlord on 27.8.1992. By this letter, the petitioner sought information regarding Bank account number of the landlord. The landlord respondent informed the tenant about his Bank account number on 4.9.92. The landlord on 31.10.92 terminated the tenancy of the petitioner defendant. Consequent thereto he filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner on the basis of default and other grounds on 10.12.92. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. on 7.2.94 alleging that the plaintiff has filed a suit earlier on the basis of first default, the rent had not been determined in that suit and, therefore, no second suit can be maintained on the ground of default, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. This application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was dismissed by the trial court and it was held that there was cause of action available to the plaintiff and, therefore, maintainability of the second suit was upheld. Such order was not challenged by the petitioner. The order dated 16.4.94 having not been challenged by the petitioner has become final.

(2.) THE petitioner defendant filed written statement in the suit on 18.8.94. On 29.3.95 issues were framed. Another issue being number 4 was decided against the defendant, which relates to admissibility of the rent note. After that evidence of the plaintiff was being recorded. On 7.10.95 petitioner defendant moved an application before the court under section 151 CPC. In this application it was averred that in the order where rent was determined in earlier suit, it has been held by the court that there is no rent due for the time in question. The second suit for default was, therefore, not maintainable. This application remained pending and the petitioner filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. By the order impugned, the trial court disposed of issue No. 2. In view of the decision on issue No. 2, no findings were given on the application under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. As regards the application u/s. 151, it was dismissed. Issue No. 2 as decided by the trial court by the order impugned reads as under :-

(3.) WHILE the first suit was having its sequence of events as aforesaid, the landlord filed a second suit on the ground of default of payment of rent on 4.11.93. In this suit, it was alleged that the tenant had not paid the monthly rent from November, 1992 to October, 1993. The allegations in the suit were denied by the petitioner and it was submitted that the landlord had already filed a suit, on a ground contained in section 13(i)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (for short 'the Act'). It was claimed by the petitioner that during the pendency of the present suit, the landlord had no right to file a second suit against the tenant u/s. 13(1)(a) of the Act. Thus, the present issue was framed and it has been decided against the petitioner. Hence, this revision.