When the Revision Petition came up for hearing before the learned Chief Justice of the High Court, he doubted the companyrectness of the decision in Kewal Rams case and directed the petition to be placed for hearing before a Division Bench.
Vide order dated 14.5.1992, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, and set aside the order of the trial companyrt, forming an opinion that in view of the appellant having attorned and entered into direct tenancy with the Trust, the respondent was number entitled to claim rent and recover possession from the appellant, and therefore, the suit filed by the respondent companyld number be treated as a suit for eviction it remained only a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the period upto 31st March, 1983.
The respondent preferred a Civil Revision Petition to the High Court which was resisted by the appellant placing reliance on a Single bench decision of Rajasthan High Court in Kewal Ram v. Mangu Mal, AIR 1974 Raj.
Another plea taken by the defendant appellant was that subsequent to the institution of suit on 30.3.1983 by the Trust against the respondent, the appellant has on 1.4.1983 directly attorned in favour of the Trust and entered into a direct tenancy agreement and therefore, w.e.f.
By order dated 22.8.1996, the Division Bench has overruled the Single Bench decision in Kewal Rams case and held that the relations, rights and obligations of the parties were governed by Section 13 of the Act and the sub tenant appellant herein inducted by the tenant respondent herein companyld number directly attorn in favour of the Trust by excluding the principal tenant, and therefore, was bound to companyply with the order of the trial companyrt under Section 13 3 of the Act.
These appeals have been filed impugning the orders dated 22.8.1996 and 23.3.1998 passed by Division Bench of the High Court.
So far as the case before us is companycerned, the defendant appellant raised a dispute putting in issue the rate of rent at which the respondent companyld recover rent from the appellant submitting that the agreed rent was in excess of the standard rent and hence was number recoverable.
The respondent served a numberice on the appellant and then filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent as also for eviction on the ground available under clause a of sub section 1 of Section 13 of the Act.
1.4.1983, the right of the respondent to recover rent and secure eviction of the appellant had companye to an end.
On 30.3.1983, the Trust also filed a suit for eviction, against its own tenant the respondent, on the ground of unlawful sub letting of the premises by the latter.
On 25.7.1985, the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara passed an order under Section 13 3 of the Act determining provisionally the rate of rent at which the appellant was required to deposit rent in the Court.
The appellant fell into arrears of rent for the period 1.1.1981 to 31.12.1982.
On 25.12.1975 Balkishan sub let the shop to Vasudev, the defendant appellant, on a monthly rent of Rs.150/ .
WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5468 OF 1998 JUDGMENT C. Lahoti, J. The suit property companysists of a shop.
The suit shop is governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 hereinafter the Act, for short .
The appellant sought for a review of the order of the Division Bench which has been rejected by order dated 23.3.1998.
This order dated 25.7.1985 was put in issue by the appellant by filing an appeal in the companyrt of Additional District Judge, Bhilwara.
On 1.1.1973 the shop was taken on rent by Balkishan, the plaintiff respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.30/ .
It forms part of a building owned by Sarvjanik Sampati Trust hereinafter, the Trust, for short .
