Devi Narayan Mathur Vs. Shital Prasad

Devi Narayan Mathur vs Shital Prasad

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Dec 14, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/768354

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/768354
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
Decided On: Dec 14, 2005
Case Number: S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 592 of 2001
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 5. I am satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and it stands dismissed without any order as to costs.

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Sections 13 and 13(4)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devi Narayan Mathur

Advocate R.K. Mathur, Adv.

Respondent

Shital Prasad

Legal References

Acts: Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Sections 13 and 13(4)
Cases Referred: In Arumugham v. Sundarambal
Reported In: RLW2006(1)Raj556; 2006(2)WLC104

Excerpt

- - 5. i am satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and it stands dismissed without any order as to costs.shiv kumar sharma, j.1. learned trial court after extending benefit of first default to the tenant defendant, dismissed the suit for eviction of the plaintiff landlord. learned first appellate court however reversed the finding of trial court and allowed the appeal of the landlord holding mat the tenant had committed second default. it is against the decree of the first appellate court that the instant appeal has been filed by the tenant.2. 1 have heard learned counsel for the appellant and scrutinised the material on record.3. since the rent was deposited after expiry of period of limitation, the finding of learned trial court was rightly reversed by the learned first -appellate court. in nasiruddih v. sita ram agarwal : [2003]1scr634 , the apex court indicated that:-the word 'shall', which is ordinarily imperative in nature, has been used in sub-section (4) of section 13. the power of the court has also been limited to the extent that it can extend time for such deposit not exceeding three months and so far as the deposit of monthly rent is concerned, by fifteen days. the court's power, therefore, is restricted. in case tenant deposits the provisional rent as determined by the court within stipulated period the tenant is relieved by the eviction decree. sub-section (4) of sec. 13 is mandatory.4. in arumugham v. sundarambal : [1999]2scr950 the apex court held that it is open to the first appellate court to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and give its own reasons for accepting the evidence on one side or rejecting the evidence on other side. it is not permissible for the second appellate court to interfere with such findings of the first appellate court only on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to grips with the reasoning given by the appellate trial court.5. i am satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and it stands dismissed without any order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Learned trial court after extending benefit of first default to the tenant defendant, dismissed the suit for eviction of the plaintiff landlord. Learned first appellate court however reversed the finding of trial Court and allowed the appeal of the landlord holding mat the tenant had committed second default. It is against the decree of the first appellate court that the instant appeal has been filed by the tenant.

2. 1 have heard learned counsel for the appellant and scrutinised the material on record.

3. Since the rent was deposited after expiry of period of limitation, the finding of learned trial Court was rightly reversed by the learned first -appellate Court. In Nasiruddih v. Sita Ram Agarwal : [2003]1SCR634 , the Apex Court indicated that:-

The word 'shall', which is ordinarily Imperative in nature, has been used in Sub-section (4) of Section 13. The power of the Court has also been limited to the extent that it can extend time for such deposit not exceeding three months and so far as the deposit of monthly rent is concerned, by fifteen days. The Court's power, therefore, is restricted. In case tenant deposits the provisional rent as determined by the Court within stipulated period the tenant is relieved by the eviction decree. Sub-section (4) of Sec. 13 is mandatory.

4. In Arumugham v. Sundarambal : [1999]2SCR950 the Apex Court held that it is open to the first appellate court to consider the evidence adduced by the parties and give its own reasons for accepting the evidence on one side or rejecting the evidence on other side. It is not permissible for the second appellate court to interfere with such findings of the first appellate court only on the ground that the first appellate court had not come to grips with the reasoning given by the appellate trial Court.

5. I am satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and it stands dismissed without any order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2005 Same Parties Devi Narayan Mathur vs Shital Prasad Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. Acts & Sections Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 -...

Tenancy