HANUMAN SAHAI SHARMA Vs. GOVIND NARAYAN RAJORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -defendant under Sec. 22 of the Rajasthan Premises Control & Eviction Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") against the order dt. 17.08.2013 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Dausa, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 47/2008, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application of the appellant for the determination of the provisional rent under Sec. 13(3) of the said Act. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff has filed the suit seeking eviction of the respondent No. 2 on the ground that he had not paid the rent due from him since last 6 months of the filing of the suit and on the ground that he had sublet the suit premises to the appellant. In the said suit, an ex -parte decree came to be passed against the respondent No. 2 and the present appellant on 07.03.2003. The respondent No. 2 and the appellant having filed two separate applications for setting aside the said ex -parte decree, the application of the appellant was allowed by the trial Court, however the same was not allowed qua the respondent No. 2, as per the order dt. 04.08.2008. It appears that the respondent No. 2 had challenged the said decree by filing an appeal being C.M.A. No. 4797/2009 before the High Court. In the said appeal, the High Court had directed the respondent No. 2 to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs. 1,35,000/ - within 6 weeks, besides a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/ - as solvent security. However, the said amount having not been deposited by the respondent No. 2, the eviction decree against him had become final. Since the said suit was pending against the present appellant, an application came to be filed by the appellant for determining the provisional rent under Sec. 13(3) of the said Act, which application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned order.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Dr. Prakash Chandra Jain for the appellant that the provisions of Section 13(3) are mandatory in nature, and therefore, the trial Court has committed an error in not determining the provisional rent as contemplated under Sec. 13(3) of the said Act. Mr. Jain, has relied upon the decisions of this Court in cases of Gani Mohammed vs. Moti Lal & Ors.,, 1988 (1) R.L.R. 1023 and Modmal vs. Maheshwari Samaj, Jodhpur : 1986 R.L.R. 540, in support of his submissions.