- (1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of INdia, the petitioner-defendant has prayed for quashing order dated 22.01.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Udaipur City (North), Udaipur in Civil Original Case No.33/1998, by which, application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1950, read with Section 151, C.P.C. was dismissed.
(2.) AS per facts of the case, respondent preferred civil suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as subletting. Defendant-petitioner filed written-statement and, after filing written-statement, trial Court determined provisional rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month vide order dated 16.07.2001. Said order was not complied with, therefore, learned trial Court passed order on 12.07.2002 whereby right of defence was struck off. The petitioner-defendant did not deposit the rent determined by the Court at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and after passing order to strike off defence on 12.07.2002 filed an application under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 after eight years on 28.10.2010 and submitted that rent earlier determined may be redetermined because certain receipts were filed by him showing rent at the rate of Rs.250/- which were taken on record. Learned trial Court after considering entire facts of the case rejected the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Section 13(3) of the Act on the ground that provisional rent was determined vide order dated 16.01.2001 as Rs.500/- per month and said rent was not deposited by the defendantpetitioner till 12.07.2002, therefore, order was passed to strike off right of defence and although certain receipts were taken on record with the condition that defendant will not be permitted to use those receipts in his defence, therefore, on the basis of such receipts, after eight years, it is not proper to redetermine the rent because there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for re-determination of the rent. The trial Court further observed that said application has been filed only to delay the trial of the suit which is filed on 02.01.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that earlier the rent was wrongly determined, therefore, certain receipts which came to the knowledge of the petitioner subsequently were filed before the Court and, if those receipts were taken on record, then, obviously the trial Court was under obligation to re-determine the rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month; but, the learned trial Court rejected the application on illegal premises, therefore, the order impugned dated 22.01.2011 may be quashed and set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the impugned order. In this case, admittedly suit was filed on 02.01.1998 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. In the said suit, after filing written-statement, provisional rent was determined vide order dated 16.01.2001 and defendant4 petitioner was directed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. Inspite of determination of provisional rent, the petitioner-defendant did not deposit the amount, therefore, order was passed on 12.07.2002 to strike off right of defence and, for near about eight years, defendantpetitioner kept mum and did not deposit rent as determined by the Court but chose to file application to take some receipts on record and re-determine the rent. The receipts though taken on record but with the condition that these receipts will not be used in defence; and, after eight years, the petitioner filed application before the Court under Section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950 for re-determination of the rent.
(3.) IN my opinion, such conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to make prayer for re-determination of rent because he has failed to comply with the earlier order dated 16.01.2001. Moreover, after passing order dated 12.07.2002 striking off right of defence, the petitioner preferred application for re-determination of rent after eight years. Learned trial Court while observing the above facts rejected the application of the petitioner with cost of Rs.1,000/-. It is significant to note that order dated 16.01.2001 by which provisional rent was determined and order dated 12.07.2002 striking off right of defence are not challenged by the petitioner; and, now, after lapse of this much of time, the petitioner filed fresh application for redetermination of rent under Section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950 which is not permissible in law, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly observed that the defendant-petitioner has filed the instant application only to delay the trial of the suit and dismissed the application with cost of Rs.1,000/-. IN my opinion, no error has been committed by the learned trial Court while rejecting the application for redetermination of rent filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950. Therefore, no interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of INdia is required in this case. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.;