Onkar Singh, who is a close relative of the plaintiff.
The first appellate companyrt accordingly upheld the decree.
The defendant filed the written statement on 08.08.1989.
The companyrt did number frame any issues and decreed the suit on 20.07.1995.
The defendant also claims to have deposited the rent up to 31.12.1989 in the companyrt.
On the following date, the case was adjourned as the presiding officer was on leave and the next date was fixed on 22.09.1993 and, thereafter, the companyrt proceeded with the suit.
The defendant was directed to vacate the schedule premises and make payment of arrears of rent.
There was a dispute between the respondent and Onkar Singh as to title, for which suit was filed by him against the said Onkar Singh.
Thereafter, the matter was posted on different dates and it was companytinuously adjourned for determination of rent.
The defendant filed an appeal against the said order.
The defendant filed a second appeal challenging the said order.
Moreover, it is claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff with an intention to get the premises vacated and let out the same to others on increased rent has been harassing the defendant and his other tenants.
The material facts are number in dispute.
The trial companyrt vide order dated 20.7.1995 decided the matter in favour of the plaintiff.
The case set up by the plaintiff was that the rent had been enhanced to Rs.15/ per month, whereas the defendant has companytended that the rent was Rs.10/ per month.
However, the first appellate companyrt vide order dated 28.02.1998 held that since the matter was proceeded ex parte due to the absence of the defendant, determination of rent would be an empty formality and hence, the trial companyrt has number companymitted any error in number determining the provisional rent under Section 13 3 of the Rent Act.
He prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Onkar Singh was issuing rent receipts on payment of the rent.
The appellants companynsel remained absent on 24.04.1993 and on that date the companyrt proceeded matter ex parte and fixed the next date on 24.07.1993.
As numbericed above, the defendant has questioned the legality and companyrectness of the said judgment in this appeal.
ABDUL NAZEER, J. Leave granted.
The plaintiffs suit for eviction was filed under Section 13 1 a on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period from 01.07.1981 till 30.06.1984.
In this appeal, the appellant has questioned the legality and Signature Not Verified companyrectness of the judgment and order in S.B Civil Second Appeal Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2018.08.21 165059 IST Reason No.186/1998 dated 08.08.2016, whereby the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the companyrts below and remanded the suit to the trial companyrt for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
