JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA,J. - (1.) The instant first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 5, Kota.
(2.) Brief facts noticed are that the respondent plaintiff filed a civil suit on 11.7.2002 for eviction of the tenanted shop and also for recovery of three years' rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month. It has been stated in the suit that the tenanted premises was rented by the plaintiff on 4.1.1997 at a rent of Rs. 3000/- per month. It has been stated that a written agreement was executed in which it was agreed that the rent for the period from 4.1.1994 to 3.1.1997 shall be payable @ Rs. 800/- per month and it has also been written in the agreement that if the shop is not vacated after completion of 3 years, plaintiff shall be entitled to recover rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month. It has been stated that an oral request was made to the defendant after 4.1.1997 for vacation of the premises but the shop was not vacated and thus the rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month was required to be paid. But, the rent has not been paid at such rate and it has been stated that defaults have been made in payment of rent. The plaintiff landlord has also prayed for decree of eviction on the basis of personal necessity. It has also been stated that on 29.11.2001 plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant asking him to make payment of rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month from 4.1.1997. It has also been stated that on 28th May, 2002 another notice for vacation of premises and payment of rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month has been asked for.
(3.) The present defendant appellant filed reply and have categorically stated that the so-called agreement was insufficiently stamped and being an unregistered document, is inadmissible in evidence. It has also been stated that the rent which was agreed to be payable is Rs. 800/- only and he signed in the agreement/rent deed wherever the plaintiff wanted him to sign and that he has not read the agreement and, therefore, the so-called agreement/rent deed mentioning payment of rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month on account of non-vacation after 3.1.1997 is not enforceable being against public policy. It is alleged by the defendant that even the plaintiff accepted that the rent deed is not enforceable and, therefore, accepted rent @ Rs. 800/- upto June 1997 and issued receipt to the defendant. The defendant has categorically denied the factum of default and has given details with reference to sending a money-order and thereafter sending of notice for giving information about Bank Account on 13.10.1997 and thereafter deposition of rent under Section 19(a) and 19(cc) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950. It has also been pleaded by the defendant in his reply that the issue with reference to rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month has already been decided in a suit between the parties numbering 222/2001 and appeal against the said judgment and decree is still pending.;