RAMGOPAL Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision petition filed by the petitioner-tenant Ramgopal under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) are as under : -

(2.) THE petitioner is in occupation of the premises in dispute which is residential in nature as a tenant under the respondents and, according to the agreement between the parties, rent at the rate of Rs. 22/- per month was to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents-land-lords. A suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months and on personal requirement was instituted by the respondents against the petitioner before the learned trial court, who, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed an order under sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act) directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 22/- per month within the period specified therein and also to deposit future rent month by month at the same rate during the pendency of the suit by 15th of each succeeding month. THEre is no dispute that this order passed by the learned trial court was complied with by the petitioner-tenant. However, the respondents, who felt that the agreed rent was no adequate filed a suit for fixation of the standard rent of the premises in dispute and, after the trial of the suit, the rent was determined by the learned trial court at the rate of Rs. 37-50 per month, but, on appeal, the standard rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 33/- per month with effect from the date of the filing of the suit for fixation of standard rent. After the fixation of the standard at the above said rate of Rs. 33/- per month the respondents moved an application under sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Act stating that by not depositing the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 33/-per month the petitioner had committed default in complying with the order passed under sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act and praying that the defence of the petitioner should be struck off. THE learned trial court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the said application. THE appeal filed by the respondents-land-lords was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide the impugned order dated 5-11-1992 and as such the application filed by the respondents was allowed and the defence of the petitioner against his eviction from the premises in dispute was struck off. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this revision petition.