MOHD. YAMIN, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 15/99 by which he allowed the appeal against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 2, Jodhpur.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Fatehlal filed a suit for ejectment of a shop situated at plot No. 340, IVth Chopasani Road, Jodhpur on the ground of default, personal necessity etc. No arrears of rent were claimed. In the written statement defendant pleaded that he did not commit default in payment of rent and that the plaintiff had no personal and bonafide necessity. After filing of the written statement the trial court fixed the matter for determination of provisional rent. The trial court in view of Ganesh Lal vs. Ladu Ram (1), held that in the suit no arrears of rent were claimed and hence determination of provisional rent was not necessary. This order was challenged in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, who decided the appeal on 17. 5. 1999, held that in view of Smt. Uma Gupta vs. Ramesh Chandra (2), it was necessary to provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court under the provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred as `the Rent Control Act' ). Aggrieved by this order, this revision has been preferred by the tenant. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the power of attorney holder of Fatehlal. A lot of time was taken from both the sides to convince as to which view should be followed. When preparing for the case, I was able to lay hands upon Ladu Ram vs. Ganesh Lal (3), in which Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court given in Ganesh Lal vs. Ladu Ram (supra), and held that in a suit for ejectment of a tenant on the ground set forth in Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act, the court is required to provisionally determine the amount of rent which a tenant is required to deposit in the order to --------relief is prayed for, for recovery of arrears of rent. Thus the judgment relied by trial court has been over-ruled. The ratio of Smt. Uma Gupta vs. Ram Chandra (supra) is that even if arrears of rent has not been claimed, determination of provisional rent is a must as per provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Rent Control Act. The bare reading of section itself requires so. Consequently, the revision petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. .;