I. S. IISRANI, J. - (1.) THE appeal has been filed against the order dated May 4, 1979, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur City (Court No. 6), in Civil Regular Suit No. 38/1978, filed regarding eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.
(2.) THE contention of Shri R. C. Kasliwal, learned counsel for the appellant is that while determining provisional rent under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act), the trial court has seriously erred in directing that the amount of rent be adjusted towards the loan account of the appellant pending with the respondent bank. It is pointed out that as per the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Section 13 of the Rent Act, the Court can only direct the tenant either to deposit rent in Court or pay to the landlord and not to deposit the same in the loan account of the appellant in the respondent bank. THE next contention is that the trial court has erred in holding that the last paid rent was @ Rs. 1150/- p. m. and it is submitted that the appellant has claimed rent to be Rs. 1650/- p. m. , and in the alternative it was also prayed that standard rent may be fixed by the Court itself. In this connection, reference was made to letter written by the respondent bank, dt. April 9, 1969, and to the notice given by the Advocate of the appellant to the respondent bank, dt. March 3, 1972 and Aug. 18, 1972. It is further contended that even though admittedly rent was paid by the respondent bank before the suit was filed by depositing the same in the loan account of the appellant with the respondent bank but this could not have been continued after the suit was filed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The contention of Shri K. L. Saxena learned counsel for the respondent is that admittedly the property in dispute has been sold by the appellant by a registered sale deed on July 16, 1982, to one Rameshwar Lal, who has in turn already filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent, bearing No-4/1985, which is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge (Court No. 3), Jaipur. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that in this order the provisional rent has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 1250/ -. It is also pointed out that even in the sale deed mentioned above, it has been mentioned by the appellant that the last paid rent was @ Rs. 1250/- p. m. It is also contended that this was accepted mode by which the rent amount was deposited in the loan account of the appellant with the respondent bank since 1. 01. 1971, after the renovation of the premises, which continued till January 30, 1978, when the suit for rent and eviction was filed by the appellant. I have heard both the parties, gone through the order of the trial court and also record and other relevant documents on the file. It may be pointed out that the dispute is not regarding the rate of the rent which is at 4 annas per square foot according to the measurement of the portion occupied by the respondent bank. The contention of the appellant is that area of 6600 square feet is in occupation of the bank, whereas according to the respondent only five thousand square feet area is in its occupation. However, I do not find it necessary to go into the above contentions of the parties regarding the rate of rent and measurement of the premises in occupation. This is for the trial court to decide after going through the documents and the evidence produced by both the parties so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the provisions of Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 13 of the Rent Act, the mode of payment is laid down by either depositing the amount in court or giving the same to the landlord, it can be seen that the amount in this case is also paid to the landlord in the sense that the same is deposited in the account of the appellant with the respondent bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amount is not paid to the landlord as required by the above mentioned provisions of the Rent Act even in the notice dated August 18, 1972, given on behalf of the appellant, it has been mentioned that amount of Rs. 1650/- and not Rs. 1250/- p. m. should be credited to the loan account of the appellant with the respondent bank. It is therefore, clear that this was accepted mode of payment between the parties and the same was adhered to even when legal notice was served by the appellant through his Advocate to the respondent Bank. I therefore, do not find any illegality in the order of the trial court so far as the payment of mode is concerned. Regarding another contention of the appellant that there was no agreed rent between the parties, therefore, the trial court should not have provisionally fixed the rent for payment @ Rs. 1250/- p. m. , it is evident that this amount of rent was credited by the respondent bank in the loan account of appellant every month till the suit was filed. Therefore, 1 do not find any error in the order of the trial court on this account also. However, it may be made clear that the trial court shall decide what monthly rent is payable by the respondent bank to the appellant while disposing the suit. I therefore, do not find any force in this appeal, which is dismissed with no order as to costs. . ;