SOBHA RAJ Vs. ABHINANDANMAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also dispose of S.B. Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 546 of 92, 547 of 92 and 548 of 92. As all of them involve the same question of facts and law, the facts of Sobh Raj (SB Civil Revision Petition No.453 of 92) are mentioned for the purposes of convenience.

(2.) The plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for eviction, against the petitioner-defendant, for his eviction from the premises in dispute, on the ground of default in payment of rent, with the allegations that the defendant-petitioner had obtained the benefit of sub-section (6) of Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act), in an earlier proceeding and had again committed default in payment of rent for more then six months on the date of the filing of the suit. It was prayed that a decree be passed against the petitioner-defendant, for his eviction from the premises in dispute. The suit was contested by the defendant - Petitioner, who pleaded that he never defaulted in payment of rent and further that he had tendered the rent to the respondents, who refused to accept the same and that he had also sent money-orders and, as such, the ground of default was not made out. The petitioner also denied having taken the benefit of sub-section (6) of Sec. 13 of the Act, in the earlier proceedings, although, it was admitted that an earlier suit was filed by the respondents on the ground of default in payment of rent. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court determined the rent under Sub-section (3) of Sec. 13 of the Act, observing that it cannot be said that in the earlier proceedings, any benefit was taken by the petitioner-defendant under sub-section (6) of Sec. 13 of the Act. Against the order, determining the rent, the respondents filed an appeal, which was heard by the learned Civil Judge, Pali, who vide the impugned order dated 24th April, 1992, has partly allowed the appeal after observing that the rent could be determined with the condition that if the petitioner had been given the benefit of sub-section (6) of Sec. 13 of the Act, in the earlier proceeding, in spite of the fact that he would deposit the rent so determined by the court, he would not be entitled to such benefit in these proceedings. He has held that if the petitioner-defendant was not given the benefit of the above-said section in the earlier proceedings, he would be entitled to the benefit being given to him in these proceedings, if the case is proved against him on the ground of default. It was also observed that the learned trial court should decide the question of the benefit having been obtained by the petitioner in the earlier suit, only after framing the necessary issues. In this view of the matter, vide the impugned order dated 24th April, 1992, the order determining the rent, has been set aside and it has been directed that the rent should be re-determined and that the above-said condition should be mentioned in the order, determining the rent. The matter was thus remanded to the learned trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant - petitioner has approached this Court by filing this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.