MEHMOOD Vs. HIMMAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) A suit for eviction was filed by plaintiff/respondent Himmat singh alleging that the defendant/appellant Mehmood is tenant in the suit premises and he encroached upon some more portion of the property purchased by him. The suit was filed in the trial court i.e. Court of District Judge, Udaipur on 8.7.1988. The appellant denied the tenancy and pleaded that he is not the tenant of the respondent but he is tenant of Wakf Board. The respondent claimed rent for the premises as Rs. 200/ - per month. As required under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950'), the trial court was required to determine the interim rent on the basis of the material placed on record by both the parties . The trial court after hearing the arguments and after considering the plea of the appellant that the appellant is not tenant of the respondent, vide order dated 22.8.1990, determined the rent of the premises as Rs. 50/ - per month and relied upon the receipt dated 1.9.1969 and the affidavit submitted by Mohammed Shah in support of the said document and directed the appellant to pay the arrears of rent for the period from 26.7.1985 to 26.7.1990 to the tune of Rs. 3,000/with interest of Rs. 725/ -. As per law, the said amount was required to be paid or deposited within 15 days from the order passed by the trial court and the tenant was, further required to pay rent month by month. The order dated 22.8.1990 was challenged by the appellant by preferring this misc. appeal before this Court on 4.10.1990. This Court on 22.10.1990 stayed only the operation of the order passed by the trial court on 22.8.1990 and that too was limited upto December 15, 1990. However, the said order was confirmed by order dated 15.7.1991. Further proceedings in the suit before the trial court were never stayed by this Court. The appeal was put in due course after service of the respondent and as per the Rules, intimation was sent to the trial court on 12.11.1990 that the appeal against the impugned order has been admitted by the High Court and the trial court was informed that all material papers in the case would be required and, therefore, whenever an intimation is received by the trial court, the record be sent to the High Court in the appeal.

(3.)