RANCHBODMAL Vs. NAWARATANMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule was issued at the instance of defendant No. 2 Ranchhodmal. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 (landlord) instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in respect of a shop, against the petitioner and non-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who are defendants Nos. 1 and 3 in the trial court, on November 29, 1976. The rate of the rent, as stated by the plaintiff is Rs. 55/- per month. According to the plaintiff, rent was due from the defendants from Kartik sudi 1, smt. 2029 to Jeth vadi 15 (amavasiya) smt. 2033. i. e. for 44 months (inclusive of Idak month) amounting to Rs. 2420/ -. Towards that, it is stated that on June 25, 1976, a cheque for Rs. 1320/-was given to the plaintiff by the defendants leaving 1100/- as due. In the written statement, it was pleaded by the defendants that they had deposited Rs. 1029-66 in the plaintiffs' account towards the electricity charges. It was contended that no amount of rent is outstanding against them.

(2.) AN application was moved by the defendants for the determination of amount under section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and stated that he has already deposited Rs. 1044-74 in the account of landlord by paying off the electric bills of the premises. The original receipts in the name of the landlord evidencing the payment of electric charges, were produced by the defendants. The learned Additional Munsif, by his order dated November 16, 1977, determined Rs. 1220-26 and directed the defendants to pay to the landlord within fifteen days or to deposit it in court. He also made a direction for deposit of the monthly rent, as envisaged by S. 13 (4) of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel, appearing for the petitioner contended that the order determining the amount of arrears of rent and interest, passed under section 13 (3) of the Act, was not appealable under section 22 of the Act and as such, the learned Additional District Judge has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law. According to the learned counsel, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge modifying the order of the learned Additional Munsiff is without jurisdiction and, therefore, it should be set aside. In these circumstances, a serious question arises for my consideration, namely, whether an appeal lies against the order passed under section 13 (3) of the Act, determining the amount of rent and interest and directions under Section 13 (4) of the Act for its payment or deposit and for payment of the monthly rent month by month, subsequent to the date of the determination under section 13 (3) of the Act.