RAM PRATAP versus ANAND KANWAR & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 70 · Decided: 21-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
RAM PRATAP
v.
ANAND KANWAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8504 of 2018)
AUGUST 21, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,
1950 –   s. 13(1) & (3) and s.19A – Eviction of tenant on the ground
of non-payment of rent – Fixation of provisional rent – Mandatory
or directory – Held: Use of the word ‘shall’ in s.13(3) makes it
mandatory on the court to fix provisional rent within three months
of the filing of the written statement but before framing of the issues,
irrespective of any application or not – If the rent so determined by
the court is paid by the tenant as provided u/s. 13(4), no decree for
eviction of the tenant can be passed on the ground of default, in
view of s. 13(6) – Thus, compliance of s.13(3) is mandatory in the
suit for eviction on the ground of default  –  Rent Control and
Eviction.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court –
HELD: It is evident from Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan
Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 that the use
of the word ‘shall’ puts a mandatory obligation on the court to fix
provisional rent within three months of the filing of the written
statement but before framing of the issues, irrespective of any
application or not. If the rent so determined by the court is paid
by the tenant as provided under Section 13(4), no decree for
eviction of the tenant can be passed on the ground of default
under Section 13(1)(a) in view of Section 13(6) of the Act. It is
thus, clear that unless the determination under Section 13(3)
takes place, s. 13(6) cannot be complied with and a valuable right
given to a tenant would be lost. The High Court rightly held
s. 13(3) to be mandatory. [Para 14] [75-D-F]
   [2018] 10 S.C.R. 70
70
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
71
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8504
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2016 of the High Court
of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 186
of 1998.
Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv.,  Ms. Astha Prasad, Ashish K. Singh,
Ashish Prasad,  Amalesh Prasad, Anupam Bhargava, Puneet Jain,
Abhinav Gupta, Harsh Jain, Ms. Ankita Gupta, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1.  Leave granted.
2. In this appeal, the appellant has questioned the legality and
correctness of the judgment and order in S.B Civil Second Appeal
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 courts below and remanded the suit to the
trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
3. The appellant-plaintiff is the landlord of the suit schedule
premises, whereas the defendant is the tenant.  The plaintiff filed Suit
No. 357 of 1984 for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule
premises on the ground of non-payment of rents under Section 13(1) of
the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for
short the “Rent Act”).
4.  According to the plaintiff, the defendant stopped paying monthly
rent from 01.07.1981 to 30.06.1984.  The defendant filed the written
statement contending that he has been paying the rent regularly till
31.05.1983 to one Sh. Onkar Singh, who is a close relative of the plaintiff.
Onkar Singh was issuing rent receipts on payment of the rent.  The
defendant also claims to have deposited the rent up to 31.12.1989 in the
court.  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.
He prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5.  The trial court vide order dated 20.7.1995 decided the matter
in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant was directed to vacate the
RAM PRATAP  v. ANAND KANWAR & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
schedule premises and make payment of arrears of rent.  The defendant
filed an appeal against the said order.  However, the first appellate court
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 court has not committed
any error in not determining the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of
the Rent Act. The first appellate court accordingly upheld the decree.
The defendan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.