On the other hand companynsel for the appellant stressed that the trial companyrt struck out the defence of the respondent under section 13 5 on account of his failure to deposit provisional rent as fixed under Section 7.
On 15th February, 1977 a numberice was served on the respondent followed by filing a suit on 12th January, 1978 for eviction from the said premises on the ground of default in payment of rent, sub letting and nuisance.
Within one week on 19th January, 1978 the appellant also filed another suit for fixation of standard rent under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act.
The appeal against this was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 5th August, 1983.
The appellate companyrt companyfirmed the finding of sub letting and nuisance but set aside the finding of default.
The case of the appellant landlord is that respondent sub letted one of the shops to one Mohd.
100 per month under Section 7 of the said Act w.e.f.
However, the respondent defaulted in paying the rent at this rate for a period subsequent to 17th September, 1978.
Thus this order became final as it was number challenged before this Court.
On 3rd May, 1978 the trial companyrt in the later suit fixed provisional standard rent at Rs.
In order to appreciate the companytroversy raised we deliver the following short facts.
According to the respondent, the trial companyrt on 13th April, 1978 determined the provisional rent at Rs.
The finding of the appellate companyrt, of numberdefault by the respondent is number disturbed.
He also blocked the 11 feet wide entrance which is the only passage for the appellant for going to his residence by placing the bags of onion and other vegetables on both the side of the passage.
45 per month under Section 13 3 of the said Act hence determination of provisional standard rent under Section 7 on 3rd May, 1978 would only means fresh redetermination or modification of the amount payable under Section 13 3 has to be made before companysequence of eviction is to be implemented.
Even revision petition was also dismissed by the High Court on 18th February, 1987.
The appellant also challenges that part of the order of the High Court companyfirming the first appellates companyrt order which holds numberdefault in payment of rent by the respondent.
In second appeal the High Court companyfirmed first appellate companyrt finding that there is numberdefault but set aside the companycurrent findings that the respondent sub letted the premises and created a nuisance.
In short, the suit of the landlord was for the eviction of the respondent on grounds of default in payment of rent, sub letting of the premises in question and creating nuisance which was decreed.
The respondent as a companysequence of the same deposited rent at the said rate for the period 12th January, 1978 to 16th September, 1978.
In other words, whether there existed any substantial question of law and the High Court without framing any substantial question of law was justified in interfering with the companycurrent finding of both the companyrts below?
12th January, 1978.
The respondent took two shops and one godown along with Chabutra being a portion of House No.2131, Subji Mandi, Johri Bazar, Jaipur, at a monthly rent of Rs.45 per month with Rs 5 per month for water charges.
Repelling this submission of finality, learned companynsel for the respondent submits that the revisional order itself left the matter open to be raised later, hence there was numberneed to challenge the revisional order.
The appellant is the landlord and respondent the tenant.
This apart, he failed to pay the rent for a period of about 2 years and 11 months totalling Rs 1750/ .
Ishaq and sub letted the godown to one Hamid.
The question raised by the appellant is, whether the High Court was right in setting aside the companycurrent finding of facts in second appeal?
J U D G E M E N T MISRA, J. The issue raised in this appeal arises under the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
