Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -defendant under Sec. 22 of the Rajasthan Premises Control & Eviction Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") against the order dt. 17.08.2013 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Dausa, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 47/2008, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application of the appellant for the determination of the provisional rent under Sec. 13(3) of the said Act. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff has filed the suit seeking eviction of the respondent No. 2 on the ground that he had not paid the rent due from him since last 6 months of the filing of the suit and on the ground that he had sublet the suit premises to the appellant. In the said suit, an ex -parte decree came to be passed against the respondent No. 2 and the present appellant on 07.03.2003. The respondent No. 2 and the appellant having filed two separate applications for setting aside the said ex -parte decree, the application of the appellant was allowed by the trial Court, however the same was not allowed qua the respondent No. 2, as per the order dt. 04.08.2008. It appears that the respondent No. 2 had challenged the said decree by filing an appeal being C.M.A. No. 4797/2009 before the High Court. In the said appeal, the High Court had directed the respondent No. 2 to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs. 1,35,000/ - within 6 weeks, besides a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/ - as solvent security. However, the said amount having not been deposited by the respondent No. 2, the eviction decree against him had become final. Since the said suit was pending against the present appellant, an application came to be filed by the appellant for determining the provisional rent under Sec. 13(3) of the said Act, which application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned order.
(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Dr. Prakash Chandra Jain for the appellant that the provisions of Section 13(3) are mandatory in nature, and therefore, the trial Court has committed an error in not determining the provisional rent as contemplated under Sec. 13(3) of the said Act. Mr. Jain, has relied upon the decisions of this Court in cases of Gani Mohammed vs. Moti Lal & Ors.,, 1988 (1) R.L.R. 1023 and Modmal vs. Maheshwari Samaj, Jodhpur : 1986 R.L.R. 540, in support of his submissions. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and to the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it appears that the suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff, originally against the respondent No. 2 and the appellant and the said suit has been decreed against the respondent No. 2 as stated hereinabove. Since the respondent No. 2 did not pay the arrears of rent as directed by the High Court in the appeal being No. 4797/2009, the decree against the respondent No. 2 has become final. The present appellant has been impleaded in the suit as the party defendant, as according to respondent No. 1 -plaintiff, the respondent No. 2 had sublet the premise to the appellant. The appellant being subtenant, as per the case of the respondent No. 1 and the decree against the respondent No. 2 having become final, there was no requirement as such for the trial Court to determine the provisional rent. It is also pertinent to note that the provisions of Section 13(3) are required to be followed only when the eviction is sought by the landlord on the ground of non payment of rent by the tenant for more than six months under Clause (a) of Section 13(1). Since the appellant is alleged subtenant, he could not compel the Court to determine the provisional rent, when the decree against the tenant i.e. the respondent No. 2 has already become final on the non compliance of the order of High Court for the payment of arrears of rent. There cannot be any disagreement with the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel Dr. Prakash Chandra Jain for the appellant, however the said decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The appeal being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed.;