HEMRAJ Vs. JUGAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Barmer, under Section 13-A (b) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The trial court passed an absolutely perfunctory order in this case directing the defendant-tenant to deposit the provisional rent @ Rs. 40 p. m. and also to make payment of arrears of rent on that basis. This order was not in consonance to the provisions of Section 13-A (b) of the Act, which reads as under.-

(2.) The appellate court has, of course, calculated the amount which was payable on account of arrears of rent by the defendant-tenant to the plaintiff-landlord from August 31, 1971 to February 28, 1977, but it failed to deduct therefrom the amount which is alleged to have been deposited by the defendant-tenant in the trial court during the course of proceedings in the suit for ejectment. On the other hand, the appellate court gave a general direction that such amount which might have been deposited by the defendant-tenant, should be adjusted against the total amount adjudged by it. The error which has crept in making the calculation, by the procedure adopted by the lower appellate court, is that interest @ 6% per annum was allowed to the plaintiff-landlord on the entire amount which was payable towards arrears of rent from August 31, 1971 up to the day prior to the date of the order, without deducting therefrom the amount which the defendant-tenant claims to have deposited in the trial court during the pendency of the suit for ejectment, prior to the date of the impugned order. The defendant-tenant has submitted an elaborate list in this Court showing the details of the amounts deposited by him in the trial court in that very suit, totalling Rs. 1,380. If the aforesaid amount was actually deposited in the trial court, before the date on which the order under Section 13-A (b) of the Act was passed by the trial court, as claimed by the defendant-tenant, which fact can easily be verified from the receipts of challans in respect of such deposits, which might be in the possession of the defendant-tenant, then the defendant- tenant could not be directed to make payment of interest on the amount which he had already deposited in the trial court prior to the date of the order in that very suit. The appellate court should have deducted the amount which the defendant-tenant had so deposited in the trial court, from the total amount of arrears of rent due against him, so as to arrive at the net amount which was due and payable by the defendant-tenant towards arrears of rent on the date of the impugned order and on the net amount so arrived at, interest @ 6% per annum should have been calculated and after adding such interest and the costs of the suit, the aggregate amount which was to be paid by the defendant- tenant in terms of the provisions of Section 13-A (b) of the Act, should have been determined. It is only thereafter that the defendant-tenant could have been directed to make payment of the aggregate amount so determined, within such time not exceeding 90 days, as the appellate court might have thought proper.

(3.) The revision application is accordingly allowed in part and the order passed by the Civil Judge, Barmer dated March 1, 1977 is modified to the extent indicated below. The Civil Judge is directed to calculate the amount of interest @ 6 % per annum on the net amount which is found to be due and payable from the defendant-tenant towards arrears of rent on March 1, 1977, after deducting from the sum of Rupees 2,040 the amount deposited by him in the trial court during the course of proceedings in the suit for ejectment, instead of calculating interest on the entire sum of Rs. 2,040. The Civil Judge should then determine the aggregate amount payable by the defendant-tenant to the plaintiff-landlord, by adding the amount of interest so calculated as also the approximate amount of costs of the suit to the net amount of arrears of rent arrived at as aforesaid. The case shall go back to the Civil Judge, Barmer for passing a modified order under Section 13-A (b) of the Act, in accordance with the directions given above. The parties are directed to appear before the Civil Judge, Barmer for the aforesaid purpose on August 22, 1977. Learned counsel for both the parties have been informed of the aforesaid date and as such it shall not be necessary for the Civil Judge, Barmer, to issue fresh notices to the parties in respect of the date as fixed above. The record of the two courts below be sent immediately to the Civil Judge, Barmer. The learned Civil Judge should expeditiously return the record of the trial court, after passing the modified order under Section 13-A (b) of the Act, to that court.