Skip to content


Prahlad Bahadur Saxena Vs. NaraIn Dass Kalra - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Tenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 533 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1985(2)WLN661
AppellantPrahlad Bahadur Saxena
RespondentNaraIn Dass Kalra
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - order 6, rule 17 and rajasthan premises (control of rent & eviction) act, 1950--section 13(5)--amendment of written statement for adjusting of rent wrongly deposited in different court--held, petitioner allowed to withdraw rent and pay to landlord to avoid complication.;revision dismissed - .....praying that he may be allowed to add a paragraph in the written statements to the effect that the rent deposited by it for the period of 15-5-73 to 10-7-79., and 14-11-79 to 28-2-1980 in suit no. 348/74 before the additional munsif (east.) ajmer, may be adjusted towards the rent payable in the later suit no. 265/76. this amendment application was disallowed by the additional civil judge, no 2, ajmer, when it was present before him during the course of the pendency of the appeal. against this order the present revision has been preferred.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties, as far as the question of striking off the defendant applicant for non payment of rent is concerned, it has become final. in view of the order passed by the court on 23-6-1983. the learned counsel for.....
Judgment:

Mohini Kapoor, J.

1. The plaintiff opposite party instituted a suit No. 348 of 1974 against the defendant applicant for arrears of rent and eviction. Subsequently, another suit No. 265 of 1976 was instituted by the plaintiff opposite party in the court of Munsif Magistrate (East), Ajmer, which was later on transferred to the court of Additional Munsif (East). Ajmer and later on again transferred to the court of Additional Munsif (West), Ajmer. The rent for the period 15th May, 1978 to 10th July, 1979 and from 14th November, 1979 to 28th February, 1980 was deposited by the applicant in the court of Additional Munsif (West), Ajmer. The plaintiff opposite party moved an application under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, praying that the defence of the defendant applicant be struck-off as he had committed defaults in the payment of rent. Upon this the defence of the defendant applicant was struck-off and the order has been confirmed by order dated 13th May, 1983 passed by this court in civil revision No. 19/83. After this the defendant applicant moved an application for amendment of the written statements praying that he may be allowed to add a paragraph in the written statements to the effect that the rent deposited by it for the period of 15-5-73 to 10-7-79., and 14-11-79 to 28-2-1980 in suit No. 348/74 before the Additional Munsif (East.) Ajmer, may be adjusted towards the rent payable in the later suit No. 265/76. This amendment application was disallowed by the Additional Civil Judge, No 2, Ajmer, when it was present before him during the course of the pendency of the appeal. Against this order the present revision has been preferred.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, as far as the question of striking off the defendant applicant for non payment of rent is concerned, it has become final. In view of the order passed by the court on 23-6-1983. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the only purpose for moving this amendment application is that the defendant applicant may not have to pay the rent for aforesaid two months twice, it is contended that the deposited amount of rent in another court may be adjusted toward the rent payable by the plaintiff opposite party.

3. It appears that if the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC is allowed for purposes of a adjusting the amount of rent deposited in a different court then it may be followed with the plea that the rent which has to be adjusted should be taken as rent deposited at the proper time so as to say that the defendant applicant did not commit default in the payment of rent. As this matter has already been decided and it is not desirable that any complication should ensure it would be proper in the circumstances of the case, to give directions that the 16 months rent wrongly deposited by the defendant applicant in the court of Additional Munsif (west) may be allowed to be withdrawn by the defendant applicant so that he may pay the same to the landlord.

4. With these observations the revision petition is dismissed.


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