GARG, J. - (1.) BOTH the aforementioned revision petitions are being decided by this common judgment as in both of them, common questions of law and facts are involved and they have been preferred against the judgment dated 14. 8. 1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 719/1996
(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- tenant-defendant Lalit Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") against the judgment dated 14. 8. 1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in civil misc. appeal No. 131/1996 by which he dismissed the appeal of the defendant and affirmed the order dated 15. 5. 1996 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Jodhpur in civil suit No. 356/1995 by which he determined the provisional rent under section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950") at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month for the period from 1. 10. 1980 to 30. 4. 1996. It arises in the following circumstances:- The non-petitioner-landlord-plaintiff Bhagwan Swaroop Srivastava (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the defendant on 30. 11. 1983 stating that there was a house. (Plot No. 181) of the plaintiff known as "ganga Bhawan" situated at Ist C Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur and the shop at ground floor from that house was taken on rent by the defendant from the plaintiff initially at the monthly rent of Rs. 7/- on 1. 6. 1957 and thereafter, the rent was increased from time to time and ultimately, with effect from 1. 8. 1980, the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month and since the defendant has not paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month from 1. 10. 1980, therefore, arrears of rent was sought from 1. 10. 1980 to 31. 10. 1983 at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month. A written statement was filed by the defendant and it was averred by the defendant in that written statement that no doubt initially the shop in question was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 7/- per month and later on, the rent was increased from time to time, but last rent was Rs. 30/- per month and not Rs. 130/- per month and, therefore, no question arises for determination of rent at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month. The learned Addl. Civil Judge (J. D.) No. 1, Jodhpur through order dated 15. 5. 1996 determined the provisional rent under section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950 at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month in the following manner holding inter-alia that the last rent which was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff was Rs. 130/-, as is evident from the two rent receipts dated 11. 10. 1980:- Rent for the period from 1. 10. 1980 to 30. 4. 1996 (187 months) at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month Rs. 24310. 00 Interest at the rate of 6% Rs. 1803. 75 Total:- Rs. 26113. 75 Rent deposited by defendant under section 19a Rs. 1440. 00 Rent deposited by defendant after determination of rent Rs. 4810. 00 Total deposited rent:- Rs. 6250. 00 Balance rent payable:- Rs. 19863. 75 The above order dated 15. 5. 1996 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Jodhpur was challenged by the defendant in appeal and the appeal of the defendant was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur through judgment dated 14. 8. 1996 and the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in para 4 of that judgment came to the conclusion that a bare perusal of rent receipts dated 11. 10. 1980 produced by the plaintiff landlord clearly goes to show that the defendant made payment of rent to the plaintiff landlord at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 14. 8. 1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, the defendant has preferred this revision petition. In this revision petition, the main contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that since the basic rent at the initial stage was Rs. 7/- per month, therefore, in determining the provisional rent under section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950, Section 7 of the Act of 1950 should have been kept in mind and thus, the determination of provisional rent on the basis of last paid rent receipts was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and thus, the impugned judgment and order of the courts below are liable to be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the provisional rent under section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950 was rightly determined by the courts below at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the defendant and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and gone through the record of the case.
(3.) SECTION 13 (3) of the Act of 1950, which deals with determination of provisional rent, clearly speaks that such amount shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid. This aspect was kept in mind by both the courts below while determining the provisional rent. There is a clear cut finding of both the courts below that last paid rent receipts dated 11. 10. 1980 show that the rent at the rate of Rs. 130/- p. m. was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. A bare perusal of two rent receipts dated 11. 10. 1980 reveals that rent for the months of August, 1980 and Sept. 1980 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month. Therefore, in these circumstances, if the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Jodhpur through order dated 15. 5. 1996 has determined the provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by him in doing so and similarly, no illegality and irregularity has been committed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in passing the appellate judgment dated 14. 8. 1996 by which he dismissed the appeal of the defendant and affirmed the order of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Jodhpur dated 15. 5. 1996. So far as the argument that Section 7 of the Act of 1950 should have been kept in mind is concerned, it would have no application to the present case, as the provisional rent was determined by the courts below under section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950 in a suit filed under section 13 of the Act of 1950 seeking eviction on various grounds including on default mentioned in Section 13 of the Act of 1950 and not under section 6 of the Act of 1950 for determination of standard rent. Thus, it is held that the provisional rent, in the present case, was to be determined as per the provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950 as the suit was filed under section 13 of the Act of 1950 and both the courts below have rightly determined the provisional rent under the provisions of section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950. ;