AVTAR SINGH SON OF PYARA SINGH, AGED 58 YEARS, C/O AVTAR ENGINEERING WORKS, VISHAL MOTOR MARKET, TILAK NAGAR CHHAWNI, KOTA (RAJASTHAN) Vs. FARID AHMAD SON OF BANNE KHAN, BY CASTE MUSALMAN, RESIDENT OF VIGYAN NAGAR, KOTA (RAJASTHAN)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant-petitioner has filed this writ petition for setting aside the order dated 28.03.2016 of learned Appellate Rent Tribunal (Additional District Judge No. 5), Kota, and order dated 08.08.2013 of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (North) Kota, thereby determining the interim rent of the shop in question.

(2.) It is contended that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (North) Kota for eviction of defendant-petitioner under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which was contested by the defendant-petitioner. Learned trial court, vide order dated 20.04.2012, determined interim rent of the shop in question, against which the defendant-petitioner filed appeal, which came to be allowed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota vide order dated 09.05.2012 setting aside the order dated 20.04.2012 and directed the trial court to pass fresh order after hearing both the parties. Learned trial court, vide order dated 04.08.2012, again determined the interim rent of the premise in question, against which the defendant-petitioner filed appeal and learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Kota, vide order dated 24.07.2013, set aside the order dated 04.08.2012 and directed the trial court to again determine the interim rent in the light of earlier order of the appellate court. It was thereafter the learned trial court, vide order dated 08.08.2013, determined the interim rent. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant-petitioner filed appeal before the court of Additional District Judge No. 5, Kota, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2016 affirming the order dated 08.08.2013 of the trial court. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, this court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders. The trial court has considered all the documents produced by the parties while determining the interim rent of the premise in question. In the rent note itself it has been mentioned that the rent shall be liable to be increased by 15% after every three years. As per the terms of the rent note, the rent was increased by 15% after every three years and in the year 1993 the rent of two shops was increased to Rs.1150/-, in the year 1996 it became Rs.1322 and in the year 1999 it was further increased to Rs.1520/-. In this way, in the year 1999 the rent of one shop was about Rs.760/-. After 1999, the rent was to be increased in the year 2002. The plaintiff purchased the shop in the year 2001. As per the rent note submitted by the defendant-petitioner, the rent of one shop in the year 2001 was Rs.760/- and the plaintiff has demanded the rent at the rate of Rs.725/- per month from 01.04.2001, and learned trial court has accordingly determined the rent of the shop at the rate of Rs.725/- per month, which cannot be said to the unjustified. The final rent shall be determined at the time of disposal of the suit itself, after considering the evidence so produced by the parties. The trial court while determining the interim rent has considered the receipts, rent note and the facts of the case. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has affirmed the said order and this court does not find any ground to interfere therein.