Skip to content


Bhanwarlal Vs. Puran Chand and Indu Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision Petition Nos. 19 and 25/1982
Judge
Reported in1982WLN614
AppellantBhanwarlal
RespondentPuran Chand and Indu Khan
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....is finally settled and standard rent is fixed by a decree passed under section 6 of the act.;the appeals filed before the additional district judge were maintainable against the order passed by the trial court and the learned additional district judge was fully empowered to hear the appeals and decide in those appeals the question of fixation of provisional rent under section 7(1) of the act read with section 22(1) of the act.;revision dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was..........in each case, in respect of different shops. in both these cases, the tenant-opposite party filed suits for fixation of standard rent under section 6 of the act, in respect of the shop of which one of them was tenant. it was claimed by the tenant-plaintiff in each suit, that the agreed rent was excessive and as such it was prayed that standard rent may be fixed for the premises in dispute.2. the tenant-plaintiffs also submitted an application under section 7 of the act seeking determination of the provisional rent for the respective shops. the trial court fixed the agreed rent as the provisional rent. the tenant-plaintiffs there upon filed appeals in the court of additional district judge, raisinghnagar. during the pendency of those appeals, the defendant landlord filed affidavits.....
Judgment:

Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.

1. In these two revision petitions, a common question about the validity of an appeal against the order passed under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') has been raised and as such both these revision petitions are disposed of by a common order. The plaintiff opposite parties are the tenants of the same land-lord, the petitioner in each case, in respect of different shops. In both these cases, the tenant-opposite party filed suits for fixation of standard rent under Section 6 of the Act, in respect of the shop of which one of them was tenant. It was claimed by the tenant-plaintiff in each suit, that the agreed rent was excessive and as such it was prayed that standard rent may be fixed for the premises in dispute.

2. The tenant-plaintiffs also submitted an application under Section 7 of the Act seeking determination of the provisional rent for the respective shops. The trial court fixed the agreed rent as the provisional rent. The tenant-plaintiffs there upon filed appeals in the court of Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar. During the pendency of those appeals, the defendant landlord filed affidavits disclosing the agreed rent of the premises before April 1, 1979, when the rent of each one of the premises was enhanced and the rent which is in dispute in the two suits was fixed. The Additional District Judge relied upon the affidavit filed by the defendant-landlord and reduced the provisional rent to the amount which was paid as rent for the premises in question prior to April 1, 1979, when the rent of the shops was enhanced to the disputed amount. In these revision petitions, learned Counsel for the landlord petitioner urges that the appeals filed before the Additional District Judge were not maintainable against the order passed by learned Munsif, fixing the provisional rent of the disputed premises. Learned Counsel laid emphasis on the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, which are to the effect that the provisional rent fixed for the premises in question shall be binding on the parties. Learned Counsel urges that provisional rent could not be altered by the trial court until a decree was passed in the suit determining standard rent for the premises in dispute and that no appeal was maintainable against the order fixing provisional rent.

3. Section 22 of the Act makes specific provision for appeals and revision petitions in suits filed under the provisions of the Act and it is provided therein that every order passed by the court under the Act was appealable. The order fixing provisional rent under Section 7 of the Act is undoubtedly an order passed by the Court under the provisions of the Act and as such an appeal lies under Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act against such an order to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the original decrees and order passed by trial court. The effect of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 appears to be that subject to the provisions relating to appeals and revisions contained in Section 22 of the Act, until the standard rent is fixed by a decree passed in the suit, the provisional rent determined under Section 7 shall not be varied. Section 7 is undoubtedly subject to other provisions of the Act, including provisions relating to appeals and revision petitions contained in Section 22. Both these provisions co-exist in the Act and they must be harmoniously construed so that the statutory right relating to appeals expressly provided in Section 22(1) of the Act, is not curtailed. Section 7 or any other section in the Act does not contain any provision to the effect that no appeal shall lie against an order fixing provisional rent under Section 7. The provisions contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 7 that the provisional rent shall remain in force until a decree is passed in the suit does not militate against the power of the appellate or revisional court regarding refixing the provisional rent. In my view, full effect should be given to the provisions contained in Section 22(1) and the right of a party to take the matter in appeal under Section 22(1) of the Act must be upheld. As such the language employed in Section 7(1) cannot be construed so as to cause curtailment of the right of appeal from an order passed under Section 7 of the Act, fixing provisional rent. The effect of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 can be clearly understood if a reference is made to Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act. Even if a suit for recovery of arrears of rent is filed by the land lord after an order fixing provisional rent under Section 7(1) in a tenant's suit for fixation of standard rent is passed, then the suit for recovery of rent shall be stayed against the defendant tenant upon payment by him of the total amount due to the landlord on the basis of the provisional rent fixed under Section 7 of the Act instead of the total amount of arrears of rent claimed in his suit by the landlord. Thus even in a case where a suit is filed by the landlord for the recovery of rent of the premises, for which the provisional rent has been fixed, the tenant could be held liable to make payment only of the amount of provisional rent determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act. Thus, the provisional rent would be binding between the parties, notwithstanding the contract for payment of rent, until the matter is finally settled and standard rent is fixed by a decree passed under Section 6 of the Act.

4. In this view of the matter, the appeals filed before the Additional District Judge were maintainable against the order passed by the trial court and the learned Additional District Judge was fully empowered to hear the appeals and decide in those appeals the question of fixation of provisional rent under Section 7(1) of the Act read with Section 22 1) of the Act. In the result, the revision petitions have no force and are dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //