T L BAKOLIA Vs. HEERA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's second appeal in a suit for eviction passed on the ground of default.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the defendant had not paid the rent from 1st January, 1974, at the rate of Rs. 70/ - per month. The trial -court first passed an order under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. It is admitted that the rent as determined was not deposited in the trial -court and the monthly rent was also not paid or deposited there -after. Consequently, the defence was stuck -off and the decree was passed after recording a finding that the defendant is a defaulter.

(3.) ON the above finding of the appellate court, Mr. Karnani, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that, since the order under Section 13 Clause (3) was passed holding that the monthly rent was Rs. 70/ - and this ha; been found to be incorrect and that there was no proper determination of rent, therefore, that order was ab -initio void. As a legal and logical corollary to it, the decree can not be allowed, argued Mr. Karnani. He pointed out that under Sub -section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, the calculation is to be done at the rate of rent at which rate it was last paid or payable. Last paid or payable rate of rent is the essence and crux of the matter and the bedrock on which the determination under Sub -clause (3) of Section 13 can be dons. Since now as per the judgment of the Appellate court, the last paid or payable monthly rent was Rs. 63/ - and not Rs. 70/ the entire fabric on which the decree is based is false, argued Mr. Karnani. According to him now this Court should remand the case directing trial court to pass an order under Sub -section (4) of Section 13 determining the last paid monthly rent as Rs. 63/ - and then allow an opportunity to deposit the same.