MAHADEV Vs. HARDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, against an order of the S.D.O., Kotputli, in a case under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.

(2.) WE have heard the counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. A short and simple point is involved for determination in this case and it is this. Sec. 8 (1) of the Ordinance runs as follows : - "8. RENTS PAYABLE BY TENANTS ON REINSTATEMENT. (1) The rent payable to the landholder by a tenant: - (a) any suit or proceeding for whose ejectment has been consigned to records under sec. 5, or (b) any decree or order for whose ejectment has been stayed under sec.6, or (c) who has been re-instated under sec. 7. shall be the same as was payable by him before suit or proceeding was consigned to records or before such decree or order was stayed or before the ejectment or dispossession leading to such re-instatement." The phrase "as was payable by him before............the ejectment or dispossession leading to such re-instatement", means paid by the tenant in the past or which should be paid as and when it legally falls due. WE have no doubts that the term payable cannot be regarded as equivalent to or synonymous with the term "paid last year". The term payable clearly means legally payable. As laid down in sec. 119 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, the rent of a tenant shall be payable in the instalments and at dates that may have been determined and recorded by a Settlement Officer, A tenant who is in occupation of holding at the time of settlement or re-settlement shall pay such rent therefor as may be determined by the Settlement Officer as provided in sec. 91 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act, In the present case no agreement is proved to have been arrived at between the parties after the fixation of rent by the Settlement Department which was done with effect from Svt. 2005, It is, therefore, clear that for Svt. 2008 the opposite party cannot claim Rs, 125/- as rent. He is entitled only to the rent fixed by the Settlement Department for the holding in dispute. The revision is, therefore, allowed, the order of the trial court is set aside and the case be returned for being proceeded further in the light of the observations made above.