KAILASH CHAND SHARMA Vs. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises from the order dated January 21, 1997 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the 'Rent Act') was determined.

(2.) IT is necessary to note a few backdrop facts. The plaintiff-non- petitioner (for short the landlord) instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the defendant-petitioner (for short the 'tenant') in respect of tenanted premises at ground floor consisting of two rooms (one facing East and one facing North) with kitchen and toilet, situated at plot No. B-1, Janta Colony, Jaipur. According to the averments made in the plaint the said property was let out to the tenant on July 1, 1993 on rent at the rate of Rs. 2500/- (two thousand five hundred) per month. The electricity and water charges had to be deposited by the tenant as per reading of the meters. No rent deed was reduced into writing and the tenancy was oral. The tenant committed default in making payment of rent since October 1, 1993. It was also pleaded that the premises in question was required reasonably and bona fidely by the landlord for his younger brother and his wife for the purpose of Clinic and Nursing Home. The tenant submitted written statement and stated that premises in question was let out to him by Smt. Sushila who is the mother of the landlord at the rate of Rs. 600/- (Six hundred) per month as rent. Rent for the month of December, 1993 was paid by him to Smt. Sushila, in the presence of another tenant Manoj Kumar Sharma. The tenant further pleaded that he made upto date payment of rent to Smt. Sushila but she did not give any receipt. The landlord himself issued a receipt for the month of March, 1994 showing the rent as Rs. 600/- per month. Other averments made in the plaint in respect of reasonable and bona fide necessity, were also denied by the tenant in the written statement.

(3.) MR . S.C. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the tenant vigorously contended that the learned trial court did not properly appreciate the documents placed before it and determined the provisional rent arbitrarily and on the basis of surmises and conjectures. In support of his contention learned counsel placed before me photostat copies of the following documents :-