MODHA RAM Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant-tenant's appeal under Section 22 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) (for short the 'Act') directed against the order dated September 15, 1983 of the learned District Judge, Bikaner, passed in Civil Original Suit No. 35 of 1982.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent (landlords) instituted a suit against the defendant-appellant (tenant) for ejectment and arrears of rent. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant took the disputed shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 400 P.M. According to the Hindu month (Vikram Samvat). The defendant did not pay rent for 40 months, Prem Paush Sudi 6 Samvat 2033. He therefore, prayed that the defendant is defaulter within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and as such is liable to be evicted. The claim of arrears of rent was confined to Rs. 14,000/- being the rent for three years at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. The plaintiff filed various receipts ranging from Paush Smvt. 2032 to Paush Smvt. 2035, showing that the defendant has paid rent to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. The defendant contested the suit. It was pleaded by him that he has taken shop in suit on rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. According to the Hindu month and that the plaintiff through Babulal (who is said to be elder brother of the plaintiff's husband) requested the defendant to sign blank forms of receipt and as the defendant has been residing in the premises for the last 16 years and having cordial relation with the plaintiff, he signed the blank forms of receipts. This he did on April 1, 1979. It was also pleaded that formerly the shop was on rent at the rate of Rs. 360/- p.m. : that Ram Pratap Ojha has let out the shop on rent of Rs. 360/- p.m. who is father-in-law of the plaintiff. The rent was increased to Rs. 200/- per month by the plaintiff's father-in-law and Babulal. The plaintiff and her mother-in-law refused to accept the rent after kartik sudi 6 Smvt. 2036. The appellant deposited rent under Section 19-A of the Act in the Court of Munsiff, Nokha. The filed entries contained in the account books, which according to him were regularly maintained. A rejoinder was filed denying the defence taken by the defendant under Section 13(3) of the Act. The learned District Judge on September 15, 1983 determined the amount payable by the defendant. He determined the amount of rent from Paush Sudi 7, Smvt. 2035 to Bhadwa Sudi 6 Smvt. 2040 amounting to Rs. 23,000/- with interest amounting to Rs. 2000/-, and directed that the rent deposited under Section 19-A of the Act be adjusted towards the amount determined under Section 13(3) of the Act. Time was allowed upto December 15, 1983 to pay the amount determined under Section 13(3) of the Act. Aggrieved, the defendant has filed this appeal as aforesaid.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has placed the copies of the plaint, written statement, rejoinder and the photostat copies of the various receipts signed by the defendant for my perusal. He has also shown me the counter-parts of the original receipts photocopies of which were filed with the plaint. The defendant has admitted in the written statement that he has signed the blank receipts. Before me also, learned counsel for the appellant stated that photostat copies of the counterparts of the receipts bear signatures of the defendant. He submitted that the blank receipts have been filed subsequently showing that the monthly rent is Rs. 400/- p.m. I have carefully read the order of the learned District Judge. Section 13(3) of the Act, amongst others, provides that the amount under Section 13(3) is to be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the one of the month previous to that in which such determination is made. From Migesar Sudi 7 to Paush sudi 6 smvt. 2035 the defendant has paid rent of Rs. 400/- being for one month of January 4, 1973. Even prior to that, the receipts relating to Smvt. 2033, 2034 and 2036 show that defendant has paid rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. His case is that he has signed blank receipts, which have been subsequently filed. This is to be determined during trial. In this connection, I have also carefully considered paras 11 and 12 of the additional pleas of the written statement, to which may attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant. Having considered the pleading of the parties and the documents that have been filed on record, I am of opinion that the learned District Judge did not commit any error when he determined that amount at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month for the period from Paush Sudi 5 smvt. 2035 to Bhadwa Sudi 6 smvt. 2040. No good reason has been shown to be interfered with the order of the learned District Judge.