DEEPCHAND JATAV Vs. COL. RAMESHWAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Appeal under section 22 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short "the Act of 1950") has been filed against the order dated 22.8.2008 passed in Case no. 98/2007 by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the provisional rent has been determined by the court below. The short facts of the case are that the respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the appellant defendant on the sole ground of default in payment of rent and the court below had determined the provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Act of 1950. Aggrieved by the above, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The appellant is paying rent to Manju Sogani who is wife of the original landlord Bhartesh Chand Sogani. Manju Sogani has also served a notice dated 7.11.2001, to the present appellant defendant demanding rent thereafter the present appellant defendant is paying regularly rent to Manju Sogani. Hence the impugned order is deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on, RLR 1993 (2) 498 (Mst. Tulsi vs. Sachhanand) and, 2004 (3) CDR 1796 (Raj.) (Rikhabraj & Anr. Vs Dwarka Das. The contention of present appellant is that where there is no prima facie evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, determination of rent is not proper.

(2.) PER contra, the contention of respondent is that admittedly the respondent -plaintiff has derived title of the property on the strength of will by the landlord and a notice of this effect was served on the defendant appellant on 21.11.2001. In spite of this, rent has not been paid, hence the learned court below is right in determining the provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Act of 1950. The reliance has been placed on : AIR 1998 Rajasthan 131, Kailash Chandra vs. Sri Kishan.

(3.) THE contention of respondent -plaintiff is that he is owner on the strength of will and relationship of tenant and landlord is established between the parties. A notice of the facts and claiming rent was also served to the defendant appellant hence there is no infirmity in the impugned order otherwise also it is in favour of the appellant that rent has been determined and by depositing the rent the present appellant could escape from the liability of eviction. His further contention is that no rent has been paid to Manju Sogani, she is not the landlord and furthermore she has not been heard since year 2008. The learned court below has considered the relevant material on record and prima facie gave a finding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and looking to the law lad down in the case of Kailash Chand (supra) it was imperative duty of the court below to determine the provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 when a suit for eviction on the ground of default has been filed. There is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal as well as stay application are liable to be rejected and hence are accordingly rejected.