MANOHAR DAS Vs. ANANDILAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, dated April 30, 1973 in a case relating to eviction of a tenant instituted under Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 ( hereinafter called 'the Act' ).

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy its background may be recalled. There is a shop bearing No. 47 situate in Dhanmandi Market, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Its original owner was Sohandas but for my purposes on account of its transfer by sale Manohar Das is the landlord. The tenant Anandilal had taken this shop on rent at Rs 100/- per month. He instituted a suit on March 30, 1971, for fixation of its standard rent under sec. 6 of the Act and it was followed by another application dated June 4, 1971 for the determination of provisional rent and the court had fixed it at Rs. 60/- per month on the same date. The tenant deposited and continues to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 60/- in the Court where proceedings for fixation of standard rent are pending. The landlord instituted a suit for tenant's eviction on November 16, 1971, on the ground of the landlord's personal bona fide and reasonable necessity and also on account of the default in the payment of rent. When the suit for eviction came up on January 4, 1972, before the Additional Munsif, Jaipur West, which for all practical purposes was the first day of hearing, the tenant complained that he had no copy of the plaint and added that if it was a suit for eviction on account of default it must be recorded that the tenant was regularly paying Rs. 60 per month as provisional rent in the proceedings relating to the fixation of standard rent. The learned Munsif passed no specific order on this application. The landlord, however, moved an application on January 27, 1973 under sec. 13 (6) of the Act praying that the defence of the tenant be struck off because he had not complied with the provisions of sec. 13 (4) of the Act. The learned Munsif, by his order dated February 13, 1973, ordered the defence of the tenant to be struck off. Dissatisfied, the tenant preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge No 1 accepted the tenant's contention that he was not liable to deposit rent under sec. 13 (4) because he was already depositing rent under sec. 7 of the Act. It is the landlord now who is dissatisfied and he is, therefore, before me.

(3.) BUT, a situation can arise where the quantum of rent itself may be a matter of dispute such as the one before me, and where the tenant has already resorted to the provisions of sec. 6 and 7 for the fixation of the standard rent. The Legislature has taken good care to provide that during the pendency of the dispute the Court shall fix what the name clearly suggests "provisional rent" which is in the nature of an ad hoc assessment by the court for fixing the liability of a tenant who disputes the fairness of the rent agreed upon. The question that calls for consideration is that in a case where the tenant punctually and faithfully keeps on depositing the provisional rent fixed under sec. 7, has he to deposit rent also under sec. 13 (4) in a suit for eviction? The answer, in my opinion, is plainly in the negative. My reasons are, firstly, sec. 7 inter alia provides that the provisional rent fixed under sec. 7 (1) "shall be binding on all parties concerned and shall remain in force till a decree fixing the standard rent therefor is finally made in such suits. " The parties obviously are the landlord and the tenant but when the legislature says that it shall remain in force till the decree fixing the standard rent therefor is finally made in such suits, it clearly commands that that alone shall be the rent which the laws hall recognise payable by the tenant to a landlord pending final disposal of the application for fixation of standard rent. Sub-sec. (3) gives another clue to the intention. It lays down that if there is a suit for recovery of arrears of rent to which the provisional rent fixed under the section is applicable such a suit shall be stayed. The reason is easy to imagine. The legislature in order to avoid a possible conflict of decisions has directed that the proceedings for the recovery of the arrears of rent shall not proceed until it is determined by the court as to what was the standard rent payable by the tenant. Sub-sec. (4) gives the order for the fixation of provisional rent the status of a decree and any failure to pay the provisional rent by a tenant within the time indicated in sub sec. (4) renders the tenant liable to eviction under sec. 13 (1) (a) as a defaulter. If the non-payment of provisional rent visits the tenant with the liability of a defaulter and consequent eviction under sec. 13 (1) (a) there is no reason either in equity or good conscience, to say that the converse of it is also not true. In other words, if the tenant faithfully pays the provisional rent, then he is not a defaulter within the meaning of sec. 13 (1) (a) and, therefore, not liable to ejectment for that reason If sec. 7 (4) is so related to sec. 13 (1) (a) then the provisions of sec. 13 (4) could be no stranger either. What sec. 13 (4) insists is that during the investigation of the dispute regarding the eviction of a tenant he shall not enjoy a holiday from the payment of rent. BUT then again the rent envisaged by sec. 13 (4) could not be any different from the rent provisionally fixed for the time being and finally fixed under sec. 7 of the Act. The language of sec 8 of the Act is so emphatic that it virtually prohibits a tenant from paying any rent other than the standard rent and during the interregnum when the standard rent fixation is under investigation it is the provisional rent. To expect a tenant to pay rent which is provisional rent statutorily fixed and which has the status of a decree, twice over or ask him to pay the agreed rent in addition to the provisional rent will be extremely oppressive against a tenant and further it will render sec. 6, 7 and 3 of the Act nugatory. A designing landlord could exercise his tyranny against a helpless tenant a situation which the legislature could not have countenanced.