RADHEY SHYAM Vs. RAM SAHAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India proving that the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3 Jaipur city, Jaipur dated 5th November, 1973 confirming the order of the learned Munsiff Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 2 February 1973 in civil suit No. 318 of 1969 be quashed. The facts giving rise to this petition may he briefly naratted as below.

(2.) THE non -petitioner No. 1 Ram Sahai who will hereinafter be referred to as the non petitioner' filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner In the court of the Munsiff, Jaipur East, Jaipur in respect of a shop situated in Jaipur on two grounds viz (1) that the. shop was required reasonably and bonafide by the con petitioner for his own use, and (2) that the petitioner had committed default in payment of rent and had then by incurred the liability to be evicted. The petitioner filed his written statement on 5.2.1969. He resisted the non -petitioner's suit and denied both the grounds relied upon by the non -petitioner for ejectment It may be relevant here to state that on the tame day he also made an application under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act) stating that the rent for the period commencing from Asoj Sudi 1, Samwat 2024 to Bhadwa Sudil Samwat 2025 had been deposited under Section 19A of the Act, of which the plaintiff had been informed before the institution of the suit & the amount of Rs. 880/ - thus deposited had already been ordered to be paid to the plaintiffs vide court's order 8.5.1972. It was further stated that the rent claimed by the plaintiff at the rate or Rs. 80/ - per month was excessive and total he was not entitled to get more than Rs. 51/ - per month. It was prayed that the amount of rent payable to the plaintiff may be determined so that the petitioner -defendant may pay up the same within the time fixed by the court This application was rejected by the court by its order dated 10th April, 1969, from which the petitioner filed appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge No. 1. Jaipur City, Jaipur and it was directed that the trial court shall deter mite the rent payables by the defendant to the plaintiff under Section 13(5) of the Act. In compliance of the order of the appellate court, learned Munsiff decided the petitioner's application under Section 13(5) of the Act. He fixed Rs. 80/ - per month as provisional rent and held that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 3,040/ - as rent for 33 month up to Kartik Sudi 1, Samwat 2027 and Rs. 100/ -as interest and since Rs. 3060/ had already by been deposited, the petitioner may deposit the balance Rs. 80/ - by 15th November, 1970 and should go on paving monthly rent by the 15th of the succeeding month. At this stag it may be mentioned that on the same day the petitioner had made an application to the court that the rent for 11 months i. e. Rs. 880/ had been deposited under Section 19A of the Act, but the plaintiff had not given allowance of the same and the defendant by way of abundant caution had deposited this rent over again It appears that the court did not take into consideration this prayer and passed the order as stated above. During the pendency of the suit rent for the month commencing from Chet Sudi 1 Samwat 2028 to Vesakh Sudi 30 Samwat 2028, which was to be paid by 13th April, 1972 was paid late by a few day i. e. on 8th May, 1972 consequently on 28th September, 1972 the plaintiff non petitioner filed an application under Section 13(6) of the Act for striking out the defence on the ground that the defendant had committed default in paying month to month rent and, therefore, his defence wear liable to be struck out. In reply to this application the defendant petitioner pleaded that in the first place he had not committed default in payment of month to month rent during the pendency of the suit and in any case the amount of Rs. 830/ - deposited by him under Section 19A of the Act was Dot taken into consideration. The learned Munsiff, by his order dated 2.2.1973 came to the conclusion that by video of the previous order dated 8th November, 1970 it was cleat that the deposit under Section 19A of the Act was not accepted by the court as valid and in this view of the matter he held that the defendant had committed default in paying monthly rent and in the result he struck out the defence against eviction. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 22 of the Act which, too, was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by his order dated 5th November, 1973 (Annexure 2). These orders have been questioned by this writ petition. The petition has been opposed on behalf of the plaintiff non petitioners who has also filed a written reply to it.

(3.) IN Rawat Hari Singh v. Sohanlal, 1973 RLW 598 it was observed that "the power conferred by the Constitution on the High Count under Article 227 of the Constitution is in the nature of a supervisory jurisdiction intended to keep the subordinate Tribunals well within their proper bounds."