DEPUTY CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER Vs. AJIJ BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL No. 315 of 94 (1305 of 93 (Defect)) has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Churu dated February 25, 1993 by which he has determined Rs. 1,62,000/- as rent from August 29, 1988 to February 28, 1993 @ Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,146/- as interest @ 6% thereon, total Rs. 1,64,146/- under Section 13(3), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act) and directed the defendant-appellants to make their payment to the plaintiff- respondent within two months. The appeal No. 13 of 94 has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Churu dated December 7, 1993 passed under Section 13(5) of the Act striking out the defence for not paying the said amount of Rs. 1,64,146/-.

(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. On August 29, 1988, the plaintiff let out her building situated at Railway Station, Churu to the defendants for their office on monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Churu determined the fair rent @ Rs. 3,000/- per month and accordingly issued fair rent certificate. The Director, Medical and Health Services, Jaipur accorded permission for the same. Budget was also sanctioned for the payment of rent at the said rate. In their written statement, the defendants admit that the suit premises has been taken on rent for their office purpose w.e.f. August 29, 1988 and no amount has been paid to the plaintiff towards rent so far. They have further averred that the rent was wrongly determined @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Collector, Churu ordered for fresh determination of rent and it was determined @ Rs. 1,290/- per month. By its order dated February 25, 1993, the trial court determined the amount of rent and interest as said above. The amount so determined was not paid and accordingly, the trial court struck out the defence by its order dated December 7, 1993.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Government Advocate that the plaintiff constructed a house after obtaining loan in MIGH scheme for residential purpose, this fact was concealed by her when the Public Works Department Authorities determined the rent at the said rate of Rs. 3,000/, the Collector, Churu ordered for inquiry and fresh determination of rent and then it was determined @ Rs. 1,290/- per month. He further contended that thereafter the plaintiff was requested to submit receipt and obtain rent @ Rs. 1,290/- but she did not produce any receipt. He also contended that the learned Additional District Judge did not take into consideration these facts and seriously erred to determine the amount of Rs. 1,64,146/- under Section 13(3) of the Act and to strike out its defence by his order dated February 25, 1993 and December 7, 1993 challenged in these appeals.