ARUN MADAN,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the impugned order dated 18.1.1993 passed by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui as well as the order dated 19.11.1994 passed by District Judge, Dausa in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6/1994 (39 of 1993) whereby the trial Court had passed the order striking-off the defence by the petitioner-tenant to the suit pending before the trial Court and which was affirmed in Appeal by the Appellate Court.
(2.) THE facts relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is tenant in shop premises named as Jain Bungalow in Bandikui District Dausa on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- since the year 1979. During the course of hearing it has transpired that two rent notes were executed in favour of the petitioner, one dated 5.2.1979 by smt. Kailashi Devi respondent No. 2 and the other by Santosh Kumar son of landlady of the suit premises Smt. Kailashi Devi, Respondent No. 1. Suit for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from shop premises in question was filed by respondent No. 1 on 1.8.1988 in the Court of Addl. Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui on the grounds of default in payment of rent for continuous period of more than six months as well as non-user of the shop premises in question by the petitioner-tenant for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of filing of the suit u/Ss. 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 for short "the Act". The petitioner contested the said suit by filing his written statement controverting the aforesaid grounds of eviction on the ground that he was not defaulter as alleged by the plaintiff in the suit for more than six months nor the shop premises in question were in use and occupation of the petitioner- tenant as alleged in the suit.
(3.) SINCE the dispute was raised by the petitioner-tenant regarding the amount of rent actually payable by him to the plaintiff-landlord, the trial Court passed the order provisionally determining the rent of the shop premises in question @ Rs. 125/- p.m. payable w.e.f. 1.11.1987 to 31.3.1989 i.e. for a period of 17 months. The learned trial Court directed the petitioner to either pay to the plaintiff or deposit with the Court the disputed amount of rent for the aforesaid period @ 125/- p.m. with interest @ 6% p.a. from due date till full realisation. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial Court provisionally determining the rent for the aforesaid period, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge, Dausa and the said appeal was rejected on merits vide order dated 22.1.1990 passed by the said Court. Thereafter the petitioner kept quiet and did not challenge the said order either by way of appeal or revision before this Court and consequently the said order attained finality.;