ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PREM NATH MOTORS (RAJ ) PVT LTD
LAWS(RAJ)-2011-7-200
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on July 28,2011

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
VERSUS
Prem Nath Motors (Raj ) Pvt Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This regular first appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 26.3.1992 in a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondent. The suit was filed on the ground of default. It was pleaded that the defendant has committed default in making payment of rent for more than six months starting from 1.1.1981, before the filing of the suit. The trial court on 8.5.1978 passed the order of provisional determination of rent u/s.13(3) of the Act. The arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.96,500,19/- was ordered to be deposited, which amount was deposited by the defendant. However, for the subsequent period, it has been held by the trial court on issue no.3 that the plaintiff-defendant further committed default in making payment of rent for the month of October, 1990. The decree of eviction was passed with direction to the defendant to pay to the plaintiffrespondent a sum of Rs.12,502.82 towards electricity and water charges.
(2.) Shri Alok Garg, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in so far as previous period of default of defendant is concerned, non-payment of rent was owing to the fact that there was a restraint order by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-E dated 4.2.1980 under Section 11A of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 requiring the defendant not to pay the amount of rent to the plaintiff. The said order was withdrawn on 25.9.1982.
(3.) Thereafter the defendant sent to the plaintiff a cheque dated 15.10.1982 of Rs.51,119,32/- by registered A.D. Post towards all the arrears, which was received by him on 22.10.1982. It was argued that the matter on behalf of defendant-appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. was not diligently conducted. Despite grant of several opportunities, the Officer in charge has acted negligently and therefore all these facts could not be proved by lead of evidence. In fact, no evidence was led on behalf of defendant and it was in the absence of evidence that the suit was decreed against the defendant-appellant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.