Jarnail Singh vs Ramesh Kumar

Jarnail Singh ...Appellant

VERSUS

Ramesh Kumar ... Respondent

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

9th of July, 2007 passed by the High Court of

Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil

Misc. Appeal No. 1101 of 2007, whereby the

High Court had allowed the appeal of the

respondent in part.

3. The question that was raised before the High

Court was that what was the rate of rent in

1 respect of the shop room, which is in

occupation of the tenant for more than 20

years, who was paying at the rate of Rs. 250 per

month to the landlord. The suit was filed before

the Court of the Additional District Judge,

Sriganganagar, Rajasthan for a decree for

eviction of the tenant in respect of the shop

room and also for arrears of rent amounting to

Rs. 1,08,000/- and payment of rent @ Rs. 3000

per month during the pendency of the suit.

4. It was the defence of the appellant that he had

paid rent of the shop room at the rate of Rs. 250

per month. It was also the case of the appellant

that he had not executed any rent agreement in

favour of the landlord/respondent. The

Additional District Judge, Sriganganagar

determined the rate payable by the appellant in

respect of the shop room at the rate of Rs. 250

per month and calculated the total arrears of

rent as Rs. 14963.90. A Misc. Appeal was filed

2 by the appellant before the High Court of

Rajasthan at Jodhpur, which was disposed of

by the High Court by the impugned order by

allowing the appeal in part and remanding the

case back to the Additional District Judge to

determine the rate of rent of the shop room.

But the High Court, at the same time, directed

the appellant to pay at the rate of Rs. 3000 per

month till such determination was made.

5. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the tenant is in

appeal before us. We have heard the learned

counsel for the parties and considered the

materials on record. In our view, interference in

the exercise of our power under Article 136 of

the Constitution is not warranted in the facts

and circumstances of the present case. On the

question viz. whether the rate of rent would be

at the rate of Rs. 250 per month or Rs. 3000 per

month and since the High Court has directed

an order of remanding the case back to the trial

3 Court to determine the rate of rent, we are of

the view that the High Court was justified in

directing the tenant/appellant to pay rent of the

shop room at the rate of Rs. 3000 per month till

the final determination is made by the trial

Court.

6. However, we make it clear that the directions

made by the High Court to pay rent at the rate

of Rs. 3000/- per month is purely provisional

and such determination by the High Court shall

not influence the trial Court from coming to a

conclusion that the rate of rent is Rs. 3000/-

per month. It will be open to the trial Court to

determine the rate of rent on consideration of

the evidence on record adduced by the parties

and thereafter, direct the tenant to deposit the

same in terms of such determination.

7. With these observations, this appeal is disposed

of. There will be no order as to costs.

4 ................................J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE ]

NEW DELHI: .................................J.

December 08, 2008 [V.S.SIRPURKAR]

5