RAM PRATAP Vs. MANPHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is finally disposed of as agreed to by both the learned counsel. This revision petition is directed against the order of Munsif, Srimadhopur dated December 5, 1981, when he passed under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), determining the rent. An appeal against that order was filed which has been dismissed by the Civil Judge Nim-ka-thana, Siker by his judgment, dated July 12, 1984.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the trial Court has not considered the material on record while adjudicating the application under Section 13(3) of the Act. He had mentioned in his application that he had paid the rent to the plaintiff but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial Court. I have gone through the written statement as well as perused the order of both the Courts below. A bare reading of the written statement indicates that not a word has been said about the mode of payment of rent and vague assertion has been made that the rent has been paid. A perusal of the appellate Court order shows that no material has been placed to show that there are entries in Bahi of the defendant and the fact that rent has been paid to the plaintiff. It is contended that this Court in Chhaganlal v. Priti Rani, 1982(1) RCJ 388. 1982 R.L.R. 846 : 1982 R.L.W. 141, has held that the words "on the basis of material on record" means all the material on record in addition to the plaint and the written statement. I do not find any 'material or record' on the basis of which a view other than what has been taken by the learned Munsif could be taken as is apparent from the order of the appellate Court that till that date no material had been placed. Hence the case cited has no application on the facts of the present case. It was for the defendant to have been vigilant at the time when the written statement was filed wherein he should have said that the rent has been paid and the entries have been made in his Bahi and besides a mention in the written statement he also ought to have placed on record the copies of Bahi but that not having been done before the decision of the application, this Court is unable to entertain any material subsequent to the date of the decision of the application.

(3.) AS a result of the discussions made above, I find no error of jurisdiction in the orders of the two Courts below and dismiss the revision-petition. Revision dismissed.