RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. JAGDISH GEHLOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant assailing the order dtd. 1/4/2015 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan, Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No.98/2004, (Jagdish and Ors. v. Rajendra), whereby the application under Sec. 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950" for the sake of brevity) has been allowed, and the application filed by the petitioner-defendant seeking extension of time for depositing the provisional rent, has been rejected. The petitioner-defendant has also challenged the order dtd. 24/4/2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur, Metropolitan in Civil Appeal No.05/2015 (Rajendra Kumar v. Jagdish and Ors.), whereby the order dtd. 1/4/2015 passed by the learned Trial Court was affirmed.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for adjudication of the present case are that the respondents- plaintiffs filed a suit under Sec. 13 of the Act of 1950, wherein one of the ground of eviction was default in payment of rent as provided under Sec. 13(1)(a) of the said Act. In accordance with the procedure prescribed under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 13 of the Act of 1950, the learned Trial Court initially determined the provisional rent vide order dtd. 16/11/2004. However, the said order was set aside by the Appellate Court, and the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court for fresh determination. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, vide order dtd. 22/2/2008, determined the provisional rent to be a sum of Rs.49,596.00 up to the month of January, 2008. The petitioner-defendant was directed to deposit the aforesaid amount after deducting the amount already paid by him. Furthermore, as regards the rent for the subsequent months, the same was directed to be deposited by the 15 days of each month in the bank account of the respondents-plaintiffs.

(3.) Since, the rent determined was not paid by the petitioner- defendant, the respondent-plaintiffs filed an application on 19/4/2008 under Sec. 13(5) of the Act of 1950 for striking out the defence of the petitioner-defendant against eviction.