SHYAM SUNDER Vs. ROOPKANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendant-tenant against the decree of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, passed in Civil First Appeal No. 13 of 1985 on Oct. 21, 1986 affirming the decree dt. Jan. 22, 1985 passed by the Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur for ejectment of the appellant from the premises detailed and described in para 1 of the plaint of Civil Suit No. 314 of 1977 instituted by the respondent-landlord against the former. It was not in dispute between the parties that the defendant-appellant was tenant of the respondent in a `malia', and Saal over it with front 'dagla' situated in Kapra Bazar, Jodhpur and that the appellant carried on his vocation under the name and style of Modi Radio Service in the said premises. The dispute between the parties was about the rate of rent of the premises stipulated between them and with regard to the date from which the rent was due against the appellant. According to the respondent landlord, the suit premises were taken on rent on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- under a rent note dt. Aug. 9, 1975, while according to the appellant-tenant, he had initially taken on rent the suit premises in the year 1969 on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- which was, later on increased to Rs. 25/- per month. According to the plaintiff, the defendant appellant had neither paid nor tendered rent to her from Jan. 10, 1976 and on the date on which the suit was filed, an amount of Rs. 521.50/- was in arrears against the appellant on account of rent from Jan. 10, 1976 to April 7, 1977. The plaintiff had further claimed damages for use and occupation with effect from April 8, 1977 up to the date of filing of the suit. On the other hand, the version of the defendant-appellant was that he had paid the entire rent to the plaintiff respondent up to March 9, 1977 and the amount claimed by the plaintiff was not due against him.

(2.) On the pleading of the parties, the trial Court framed three issues. The first issue was to the effect as to whether the defendant had put his signatures on a blank stamp paper whereupon the plaintiff later on fraudulently got a rent note written mentioning therein the rate of rent as Rs. 35/- per month instead of Rs. 25 /- per month? This issue was framed on the basis of the plea taken by the appellant in para 2 of the written statement. The second issue was to the effect as to whether the defendant had paid rent to the plaintiff up to March 9, 1977 and was he, therefore, not a defaulter? Last issue was about relief.

(3.) It appears that on Sept. 1, 1978, the trial Court, after hearing the parties and on the basis of the material on record, provisionally determined the amount of rent under sub-sec. (3) of S.13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereinafter, "the Act") to be deposited in Court by the appellant or paid to the landlord for the period from Jan. 10, 1976, to Sept. 9,1978 amounting to Rs. 1120/- and an amount of Rs. 86.80 as interest, in all Rs. 1206.80p. The defendant was directed to pay this amount to the plaintiff after depositing the same in Court within 15 days from the date of the determination. It may be mentioned that against this order, the defendant filed appeal No. 85 of 1978 before the District Judge, Jodhpur, which was dismissed on July 23, 1979. The defendant-appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 200/- as rent in Court on Sept. 15, 1978. He further deposited an amount of Rs. 1006/- on account of rent in the trial Court on Nov. 30, 1978. Thus the defendant had deposited in the trial Court a total amount of Rs. 1206/- on account of arrears of rent. This total amount was deposited up to Nov. 30, 1978. It may be mentioned that time for making deposit had been extended by the trial Court on a petition filed by the defendant on Oct. 3, 1978 by its order dt. Nov. 3, 1978.