PADAM CHAND Vs. GORDHAN DAS
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Referred Judgements :-
SHRI VIDYA PRACHAR TRUST V. PANDIT BASANT RAM
JYOTINDER KUMAR SRIVASTAVA V. KEWALJHARI DEVI
DULICHAND V. MAMAN CHAND
SURAJ NARAIN V. LAXMI DEVI
RAJASTHAN STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD,JAIPUR V. MST. GURDEEP KAUR
MARTIN AND HARRIS PVT LTD VS. PREM CHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
KANTA BHATNAGAR,J. -
(1.)THESE two revision petitions are directed against the orders dated December 1, 1983 passed by the District Judge, Churu in Civil Appeal Nos. 13 and 14 of 1983 by which the orders passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sasrdarshahr dated February 14, 1983, allowing the applications under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') were affirmed and the defence of the defendants-petitioners was struck off.
(2.)THE two orders are of the same dates and exactly on the same point. The dates of the fixing of the provisional rent and of filing the various applications and replies by the parties are also the same. The only difference is about the rate of rent and the amount determined. A common question of law as to whether in the given circumstances of the case, the learned Munsif was justified in striking out the defence of the defendants-petitioners is involved in the case. Hence, I propose to dispose of the two revision petitions by one common order.
Notices were issued to the non-petitioner at admission stage and Mr. N.M. Singhvi has put in appearance on his behalf. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the petitions were heard for final disposal.
(3.)THE facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petitions are as under :- Non-petitioner filed suits against the petitioners for eviction from the suit premises and recovery of arrears of rent on the ground of default and personal bonafide requirement of the suit premises. The suits were filed on December 15, 1980. Written statements were filed by the non-petitoner on April 26, 1982. The learned Munsif determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) and issued directions U/s 13(4) of the Act for depositing the amount as determined within 60 days and to go on deposition monthly rent by the end of 15th of the month next to which the rent becomes due. The petitioners did not comply with that order. On the next date of hearing i.e. on July 19, 1982 the landlord non-petitioner filed applications u/s 13(5) of the Act with the prayer that as the provisional rent determined on April 16, 1982 has not been paid or deposited and the defendants have failed to comply with the directions u/s 13(4) of the Act, the defence against the eviction be struck off. On September 6, 1982 the petitioners filed applications that as they had deposited the rent u/s 19A of the Act, the applications of the plaintiff may be dismissed. On January 24, 1983 applications under Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the Code) Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code were filed by the petitioners for placing on record certain vouchers and receipts to substantiate their case that they had deposited the rent in the Court u/s 19A of the Act. By the order dated February 14, 1983 the applications under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code were allowed. By the same order the applications of the petitioner u/s 13(5) of the Act dated July 19, 1982 were allowed. It is second part of the order which caused grievance to the petitioners and they have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.