Judgment:
Inder Sen Israni, J.
1. This is civil Misc. appeal against the order dated 5th April, 1977 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 141/76, whereby the rent was determined under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after called as 'the Act') and directed the appellant to pay to the plaintiff of deposit in court a sum of Rs. 12,487/-.
2. For the purpose of this appeal, it will suffice to state that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for rent and eviction against the defendant appellant in the court of District Judge, Jaipur City and claimed arrears of rent from 1-7-1973 to 30-9-1975 at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month, totalling to Rs. 6,750/-. There is no dispute regarding the rate of the rent between the parties. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that a sum of Rs. 7000/-has been deposited towards the rent in the court of Munsiff (West) Jaipur under Section 19-A of the Act. Learned District Judge by the impugned order determined the amount of rented directed the defendant-appellant to pay to the plaintiff or deposit in the court a sum of Rs. 12,487/- which included Rs. 11.250/-as arrears of rent and Rs. 1,237/-as the amount of interest. However, the learned District Judge refused to adjust the amount of rent of Rs. 7,000/- deposited by the defendant-appellant in the court of Munsiff(West) Jaipur under Section 19-A of the Act and directed the defendant to deposit the whole amount as determined by the court The defendant-appellant; has, therefore, filed this appeal against the impugned order.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the amount of Rs. 3250/- deposited under Section 19-A of the Act in respect of the rent from 1-7-1973 to 31-7-1974 for 13 months should have been adjusted by the learned trial court towards the arrears of rent determined by it. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the amount deposited under Section 19-A of the Act with respect to the period from 1.7.1973 to June, 1973 is said to be time barred, by the plaintiff respondent, therefore, does not press that this amount may be adjusted towards the amount of rent determined by the trial court.
4 Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondent admits the position of law that in view of the decision in the case of Hukam Singh v. Shanker 1980 (1) RCC 672, the amount deposited under Section 12-A of the Act should have been adjusted by the trial court and set off should have been given in respect of the same in the rent amount determined by the court. He however, contends that such adjustment should not mean that the plaintiff-respondent will not be in position to challenge such deposit under Section 19-A, which were not deposited within time, in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant also admits this position that this is only provisional determination of the rent under Section 13(2) of the Act, therefore, this question can be agitated by the defendant at the time of final decision of the case. The position of law in this regard is amply clear.
5. in view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the appellant will be entitled to get Rs. 3,250/- adjusted from the amount of rent determined by the trial court. It is also made clear that the defendant-appellant shall not be not be liable to pay any interest on this amount which had been already deposited under Section 19-A of the Act.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.