Jarnail Singh Vs.
Ramesh Kumar  INSC 2118 (8 December 2008)
REPORTABLE IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7192 OF
2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2091 of 2008) Jarnail Singh ...Appellant VERSUS
Ramesh Kumar ...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
these observations, this appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to
................................J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE]
Pages: 1 2 3