Full Judgment
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. This revision arises from the order dated January 21, 1997 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby provisional rent under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the 'Rent Act') was determined.
2. It is necessary to note a few backdrop facts. The plaintiff-non-petitioner (for short the landlord) instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the defendant petitioner (for short the, 'tenant') in respect of tenanted premises at ground floor consisting of two rooms (one facing East and one facing North), with kitchen and toilet, situated at plot No. B-1 Janta Colony, Jaipur. According to the averments made in the plaint the said property was let out to the tenant on July 1, 1993 on rent at the rate of Rs. 2500/- (two thousand five hundred) per month. The electricity and water charges had to deposit by the tenant as per reading of the meters. No rent deed was reduced into writing and the tenancy was oral.. The tenant committed default in making payment of rent since October 1, 1993. It was also pleaded that the premises in question was required reasonably and bonafidely by the landlord for his younger brother and his wife for the purpose of clinic and Nursing home. The tenant submitted written statement and stated that premises in question was let out to him by Smt. Sushila who is the mother of the landlord at the rate of Rs. 600/- (Six hundred) per month as rent. No rent for the month of December, 1993 was paid by him to Smt. Sushila, in the presence of another tenant Manoj Kumar Sharma. The tenant further pleaded that he made upto date payment of rent to Smt. Sushila but she did not give any receipt. The landlord himself issued a receipt for the month of March, 1994 showing the rent as Rs. 600/- per month. Other averments made in the plaint in respect of reasonable and bonafide necessity, were also denied by the tenant in the written statement.
3. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties and after perusing the documents placed before it by the parties determined the provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month and directed the tenant to deposit arrears of the rent with six percent part annum interest.
4. Mr. S.C. Gupta learned Counsel appearing for the tenant vigorously contended that the learned Trial Court did not properly appreciate the documents place before it and determined the provisional rent arbitrarily and on the basis of surmises and conjectures. In support of his contention learned Counsel placed before me photo state copies of the following documents:
(i) Plaint and written statement.
(ii) House tax assessment list of the house No. B-1 for the year 1993-94.
(iii) House rent receipt signed by D. C. Sharma, B-1, Janta Colony, Jaipur on Revenue Stamp of 20 paisa.
(iv) Affidavits of Mohan Singh, Kailash Chand Sharma, Mal Singh Shekhawat and Manoj Kumar Sharma.
5. On the other hand Mr. Alok Sharma leaned counsel appearing for the landlord supported the impugned older and placed before the photo state copies of the following documents:
(i) Letter dated 11.1.1994 written by Dinesh Sharma to House Tax Assessor Municipal Corporation Jaipur, raising objections in respect of House tax notice for the year 1993-94.
(ii) 10 Rent receipts from 1.8.1990 till 2.5.1991 in the name of tenant Hukam Chand in respect of premises consisting two rooms facing East and North with kitchen at ground floor of B-1, Janta Colony, Jaipur duly signed by landlord and tenant, showing at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month.
(iii) 4 Rent Receipts from 15.1.1993 till 2.4.1993 in the name of tenant Kamal Kumar Jain in respect of aforesaid premises duly signed by the landlord and tenant showing rent at the rate of Rs. 2200/- per month.
(iv) Statement of Income filed by the landlord Dinesh Sharma before Income Tax Department (Asstt. year 1994 -95, A/c year ending 31.3.1994) showing rental income as under:
Rental Income from House at B-1, Janta Colony Jaipur as per details given below:
(i) Manoj SharmaApril 1993 to November 1993 @ 1,500/- p.m. Rs. 12,000/-(ii) Kamal Kumar Jainfor April 1993 @ 2,200/- p.m. Rs. 2,200/-(iii) Kailash Chand Sharmaw.e.f. July 1993 to Sept. 1993 @ 2,500/- p.m. Rs. 7,500/-(not paying rent w.e.f. Oct. 1993) Rs. 21,700/-(v) House Tax assessment list of house No. B-1 for the year 1995-96 showing the total rent of Rs. 22,000/- per year.
(vi) Report date August 24,1995 of Hand writing expert Sh. Krishna Charan, giving prima facie opinion about photo copy of house rent receipt alleged to have been issued by D.C. Sharma. As per this report the rent receipt does not bear the signatures of land lord Dinesh Sharma.
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the documents produced before me.
7. As per Section 22 of the Rent Act the tenant ought to have filed appeal against the impugned order and when appeal is competent the revision is not maintainable. Therefore, I treat this revision as appeal. I have checked the date of filing the revision. Even if I treat this revision as appeal it has been filed within limitation.
8. 1 am unable to persuade myself agree with the contentions raised by Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the tenant because of the following questions:
A property which was let out at Rs. 2,000/- per month in the year 1990 and at Rs. 2,200/- per month in the year 1993, how can it be let out at Rs. 600/- per month in the month of July, 1993
9. I have closely scrutinised the documents and perused the impugned order. After weighing the documents placed before me, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the order of the learned Trial Court. I may make detailed appreciation of the documents but it will not be proper as final determination of the rent is yet to be made by the learned Trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties and my assessment of documents may affect the trial of the suit. I may only say that provisional rent has rightly been determined.
10. In the result the revision/appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Impugned order dated January 21, 1997 stands confirmed.