BHAGWAN DAS SINDHI Vs. GOPESH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court vide order dt.29/05/08 observed to finally dispose of the matter at admission stage.

(2.) Instant petition has been filed by tenant assailing orders dt.09/04/07 (Ann.1) of Rent Tribunal, Jaipur (Org. Appl.782/04) and so also dt.17/03/08 (Ann.2) of Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur City dismissing Appeal No. 83/2007. Respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff) filed suit for eviction Under Section 6 & 9 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ("Rent Act") on 19/05/04 with the grievance that agreed rent between the parties which petitioner (tenant) was under obligation to pay was Rs. 430/- per month; and when there was default on account of non-payment of the rent, respondent plaintiff served legal notice dt.03/04/2004 as required under Rent Act served on 08/04/2004 in which it was specifically mentioned that petitioner had failed to make payment of agreed rent from December, 2003 to April, 2004.

(3.) It is relevant to mention that in legal notice served as required under proviso to Section 9(a) of Rent Act, plaintiff also disclosed his bank account in which petitioner tenant was supposed to deposit the rent due & payable, which he failed to make even on legal notice being served; as a result whereof, tenant committed alleged default in payment of the rent, which is one of the grounds for eviction Under Section 9(a) of Rent Act. On the basis of material on record, learned Rent Tribunal framed two issues with regard to (1) default in making payment of agreed rent and (2) as to whether the rent could be determined in terms of formula provided Under Section 6 of the Rent Act. After taking note of material on record, learned Rent Tribunal recorded the finding on both the issues in favour of respondent plaintiff holding that once legal notice dt.03/04/04 (Ex.2) was served on 08/04/04 - in response whereof, tenant was under obligation to deposit agreed rent within thirty days, of which he admittedly committed default and according to petitioner-defendant, he deposited due rent partly on 10/06/04 and balance on 09/07/04, much after thirty days of legal notice being served as provided Under Section 9 of Rent Act and therefore, defendant was defaulter in making payment of rent of suit shop. As regards issue No. 2, since no rent could be agreed between the parties, learned Rent Tribunal in terms of formula provided Under Section 6 of Rent Act, determined the rent having become payable from the date of filing of original application dt.19/05/04; and accordingly, the suit filed by plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dt.09/04/07 (Ann.1) - against which petitioner preferred appeal but was dismissed by Appellate Rent Tribunal vide judgment dt.17/03/08 (Ann.2). Counsel for petitioner submits that the Rent Tribunal has failed to grant permission to cross examine respondent plaintiff, through whom he could have made out a case that rent was tendered on various occasions, and if plaintiff failed to accept the rent, that should not be considered a ground of default as contemplated Under Section 9 of the Act.