KUSHAL WADI SOJAT Vs. PREMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6. 7. 87 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, whereby the plaintiff's application for striking out the defence under S. 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') has been rejected.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the impugned order is appealable under Sec. 22 of the Act and this revision is incompetent and not maintainable.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the non petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Darshansingh vs. Mst. Daso (3 ). In that case, the question was whether the dismissal of an application for restitution of conjugal rights is appealable or not. This Court held that the expression "passing of any decree" under Sec. 25 of the Act would mean decree granting relief of the nature stated in Ss. 9 to13 of the Act and the expression 'decrees' made under the provisions of the Act, would mean decrees granting relief or refusing relief and it was also observed that it cannot be the intention of the legislatures to attach finality to the orders of the District Judge regarding the dismissal of the petitions under Ss. 9 to 13 of the Act. Thus, in that case, the decree granting relief as well as refusing relief, both were considered to be appealable. Similarly, the order striking out the defence and refusing to strike out the defence, both can be considered to be an order passed under the Act. Hence, against such an order of rejection if the landlord's application for striking out the defence an appeal would lie under Sec. 22 of the Act. I, therefore, find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner and I hold that the impugned order is appealable and the present revision is not maintainable.