RAM LAL Vs. SHANTI DEVI BOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'') challenging the order dated 16/05/2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 19/2007, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order dated 10/12/2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 85 of 1997. In the instant case, it appears that the respondents are the legal heirs of the deceased Mathura Prasad Bohra (original plaintiff). The said Mathur Prasad Bohra had filed the suit against the present petitioner -defendant seeking eviction and recovery of rent in respect of the disputed shop. The petitioner -defendant had resisted the said suit by filing the reply contending inter -alia that the said plaintiff Mathur Prasad Bohra had no right, title or interest over the suit property, and that the defendant had taken on rent the disputed shop from one late Shri Durga Prasad. According to the petitioner -defendant, any writing executed by Shri Durga Prasad in favour of Mathura Prasad Bohra, was not binding him and such writing was forged one. In the said suit, the Trial Court determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the said Act believing the prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, vide order dated 10/12/2004. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner -defendant had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 16/5/2007. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. M.K. Jain for the petitioner that as per the decision of the Division Bench in case of Mst. Tulsi v. Sachhanand,, RLR 1993 (2) 498, before determination of the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the said Act, the Court has to prima facie satisfy itself whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties or not. According to him, the writing, relied upon by the original plaintiff Mathura Prasad Bohra allegedly executed by Durga Prasad, was a forged one and not binding to the petitioner -defendant. He further submitted that the Trial Court should have first determined the issue whether their existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not, before determining the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the said Act.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that the Trial Court has determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the said Act believing the prima facie relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, which order has also been confirmed by the Appellate Court. There being concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Even as per the decision of the Division Bench in case of Mst. Tulsi v. Sachhanand,, RLR 1993 (2) 498 (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Trial Court is required to act under Section 13(3) on the basis of the material on record and if the Court finds prima facie that there is relationship of landlord and tenant, the Court can determine the rent provisionally under Section 13(3) of the said Act. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Court as well as by the Trial Court, and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed, which is accordingly dismissed.