HARBANS LAL, J. - (1.) THE instant civil misc. appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (here-in-after referred to in short `the Act') is directed against the order dated 9. 11. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, Distt. Kota in Civil Original Suit No. 1/2000, whereby the provisional rent has been determined u/sec. 13 (3) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts are that the respondent landlord instituted a suit on 9. 12. 1999 in the court below for eviction on the twin grounds of default in payment of rent and non-user of the shop for last six months with the averments that the suit shop was letout to appellant-defendant w. e. f. 1. 2. 1997 @ Rs. 2,500/- p. m. and he failed to make payment of rent after May 1997. The appellant-tenant on the other hand in his written statement denied the averments and pleaded that he had neither taken the suit shop on rent w. e. f. 1. 2. 1997 nor executed the rent-note on 28. 1. 1997 and that the suit shop was continuing in his tenancy from the time of his father Manak Chand who had taken it on rent since 1966. He also pleaded that the rent was paid by him upto 31. 12. 1998 and thereafter the landlord refused to accept the rent. As the suit was also based on the ground of default u/sec. 13 (1) (a) of the Act, the learned trial Court after hearing the parties and on the basis of the material on record determined on 9. 11. 2000 provisional rent @ Rs. 2,500/- p. m. for the period w. e. f. June 1997 to October 2000 amounting to Rs. 1,02,500/- with interest @ 6% p. a. and directed the appellant-tenant either to pay the same to the respondent-landlord or to deposit it within the prescribed period of 15 days and to make payment of future rent month by month by 15th of next month, which order is under challenge in this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been contended by and on behalf of the appellant-tenant that the court below has not considered the rent-note which was forged and fabricated on one of the two signed blank stamps which he had given to the landlord-plaintiff in January 1997 when he had taken a loan of Rs. 5,000/- from him, for which he had even instituted a criminal case wherein one of the signed blank stamp was recovered from his possession. It has also been contended that the court below has not considered the fact that the tenancy was old tenancy which was continuing un-interruptedly since 1966 and the rent could not be enhanced to Rs. 2,500/- per mensem. It has, therefore, been prayed that the order of the court below be quashed and setaside and the matter be remitted back to the trial Court for determining the provisional rent afresh after recording the evidence of the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has on the other hand supported the order impugned and has submitted that the order impugned is based on a detailed, proper and legal appreciation of the materials on record and it does not suffer from any infirmity so as to justify interference by this court in it.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the order impugned. Section 13 (3) of the Act casts a duty on the court to determine the amount of rent if a suit for eviction is based on the ground set-forth in clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 with or without any other ground. The rent is to be determined under this sub-section after hearing the parties and on the basis of the material on record. The court has to calculate the rent at the rate at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant had made the default. This determination of rent under this sub-section is provisional subject to adjustments, corrections and modifications subsequently when the suit is finally disposed of. The object of this sub-section (3) is to afford a protection to the tenant and give him one more opportunity to make the payment of the arrears of rent. It has been held in Ganesh Lal vs. Laduram (1), that `material on record' includes `averments of plaint'. In Chagan Lal vs. Rambabu (2), it has been held that the court may examine the parties under Order 10 of the CPC and may also took into the other material on record. The material on record available for determination of the provisional rent may consist of pleading of the parties, their conduct, surrounding circumstances, their examination under Order 10 CPC. , if any and other material, if available. ;