HARNARAIN PUROHIT Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been filed against the order dated May 4, 1979, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur City (Court No. 6), in Civil Regular Suit No. 38/1978, filed regarding eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.

(2.) THE contention of Shri R. C. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the appellant is that while determining provisional rent under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act), the trial court has seriously erred in directing that the amount of rent be adjusted towards the loan account of the appellant pending with the respondent bank. It is pointed out that as per the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Section 13 of the Rent Act, the Court can only direct the tenant either to deposit rent in Court or pay to the landlord and not to deposit the same in the loan account of the appellant in the respondent bank. THE next contention is that the trial court has erred in holding that the last paid rent was @ Rs. 1150/- p. m. and it is submitted that the appellant has claimed rent to be Rs. 1650/- p. m. , and in the alternative it was also prayed that standard rent may be fixed by the Court itself. In this connection, reference was made to letter written by the respondent bank, dt. April 9, 1969, and to the notice given by the Advocate of the appellant to the respondent bank, dt. March 3, 1972 and Aug. 18, 1972. It is further contended that even though admittedly rent was paid by the respondent bank before the suit was filed by depositing the same in the loan account of the appellant with the respondent bank but this could not have been continued after the suit was filed by the learned counsel for the appellant.