VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA,AMITAVA ROY, JJ. - (1.) THE learned Single Judge having negated the appellants' challenge to the judgment and order dated 19.07.2011 passed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan in Appeal No.65/2010 vide the impugned decision dated 04.04.2013. The instant appeal has thus been presented seeking redress.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Ashok Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Amit Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered essential to issue formal notice to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondent No.3 had instituted a suit in the Court of learned Rent Control Tribunal, Jaipur under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act 2001') praying for a decree for eviction of the appellants from the suit premises, as described therein and also for an amount of Rs.64,000/ - as arrears of rent for the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.08.2004, for which they (appellants) were allegedly in default. The plaint, inter alia, disclosed that a suit under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act 1950'), had meanwhile been instituted by the respondent No.3 and registered as Case No.41/2002 in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur for fixation of standard rent, wherein by order dated 04.07.2003 provisional monthly rent of Rs.2,000/ - had been fixed by that Court under the said enactment. According to the respondent No.3, in spite of such determination of provisional rent, the appellants, without any lawful justification, defaulted in making payment thereof for the period from 01.01.2002 to 31.08.2004, for which apart from seeking their eviction from the suit premises, a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.64,000/ - had been prayed. That before institution of the suit, an Advocate's notice dated 15.06.2004 claiming the aforementioned outstanding amount, had been given and that the appellants did neither make any payment nor offer any response thereto, was also mentioned.
(3.) THE appellants in their written statement referred to the pendency of three proceedings between the parties involving the same suit premises including the one instituted by the respondent No.3 for fixation of standard rent. They insisted that the pending proceedings included a suit for their eviction from the suit premises on the ground of default as well. According to them, the suit on the ground of default in making the payment of the provisional rent fixed by the order dated 04.07.2003 under the Act 2001, was not maintainable in law. This was more so, they contended, as while assailing the fixation of provisional rent, they had meanwhile preferred an appeal before this Court, which was pending. They pleaded as well that since there was a dispute with regard to the rent payable in terms of Section 4 of the Act 2001, they could, by no means, be construed to be defaulters and thus, were not liable to be evicted under Section 9 thereof.;