- (1.)The defendant tenant has filed the present second appeal being aggrieved by the concurrent eviction decree passed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the 'Act of 1950') against him in respect of a suit shop situated at New Bapu Bazar, Udaipur. The eviction suit No.33/98 Devendra Kumar vs. Om Prakash was decreed by the learned trial court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) North, Udaipur on 18/5/2013 on the ground of default in payment of rent by the tenant for the period January, 1994 to November, 1997 @ Rs.500/- per month. The appellate court upheld the said eviction decree on the said ground established by the landlord and dismissed the tenant's appeal No.2/2013 Om Prakash vs. Devendra Kumar on 12/11/2014.
(2.)Learned counsel Mr. R.K.Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi appearing for the appellant-tenant submitted that on 16/1/2001 the learned trial court determined the provisional rent for the period 1/1/1994 to 31/12/2000 @ Rs.500/- pm to the extent of Rs.50,925/- including the interest thereon of Rs.8925/- and directed the tenant to pay the same within a period of 15 days and on account of non-compliance of the same & non-payment of monthly rent thereafter under Section 13(4) of the Act, the defence of the tenant was struck down as per the provision of Section 13(5) of the Act of 1950 on 12/7/2002. The said order under Section 13(5) of the Act striking down the defence of the tenant was challenged by the tenant by way of appeal No.35/2002 before the learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Udaipur but the said appeal was also dismissed on 29/8/2003 against which a writ petition was filed before the High Court by way of writ petition No. 27/2004, which was also rejected by this Court on 31/1/2006 and thus, the order striking off the defence of the tenant was upheld upto the High Court and consequently, the eviction decree was passed.
(3.)The issue which is now sought to be raised and was raised before the lower appellate court also is that the order dated 16/1/2001 determining the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Act was illegal and nonest order because as per the proviso to Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950, the determination of the rent could not go beyond the period of three years as rest of the arrears of rent was barred by the law of limitation and, therefore, the arrears of rent determined vide order dated 16/1/2001 for the period 1/1/1994 to 31/12/2000, for the period of about seven years, was illegal and that order deserves to be quashed and that is the substantial question of law arising in the present second appeal filed by the tenant.