BHERU Vs. GHASI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants appeal in a suit for eviction which has been decreed on the ground of default.

(2.) THE short point raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the defendant in his written statement disputed the amount of rent on various grounds and deposited that part of it which was undisputed. The trial court did not act under sub -sec. (5) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 as it stood when the case came up for consideration. Mr. Tikkus contention is that since the trial court failed to do its duty of determining the rent under sub -section (5) of Section 13 of the Act of 1950 as it was in existence at the relevant time i.e. May 15, 1975. Therefore, the judgements of both the lower courts were vitiated.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents has not disputed that sub -section (5) of Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 was in the following form in force at the relevant time when the written statement was filed His only dispute is that the defendant never disputed the rent and, therefore, it was not necessary for the Court to determine the rent: -