IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Art. 227) No. Wh$§ OF zoos PETITIONER «’B‘adal Nirmalkar, son of Late (Defendant) Indal Singh Nirmalkar, aged about 36 years, Proprietor- M/s Rajdhani Drycleaners, Shop No.10, Navkar Bhawan, Choubey Colony, Swami Atmanand Ward, Raipur. Vs ‘RESISONDENT Navkar Construction, a (Plaintiff) ‘ partnership firm, through its Partner Shri Inderchand- Dhadiwal, son of Late Uttam Chand Dhadiwal, residentkof Sadar Bazar, Raipur. @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILA$PUR Singie Bench: Hon‘ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. Writ Petition {Art 227) No.4795 I 2008 ETmONER Badal Nirmalkar EFENDANT Versus ESPONDENT Navkar Cunstructian LAlNTtFF $hwi BP. Shanna, coun5el far the petitioner. Shri GD. Vaswani‘ counsel for respondent. WRIT PETITION “NDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORALORDER (04.03.2010) The fespondentipiaintiff has fueci a suit for eviction ef £he defeftdant from the suit Shep on me ground under seetion 12(1 )(a) and (b) of Chhattisgarh Assummodation 39mm Act, 19%5. {2) Afte! receipt of summons me defendant 5ubmitted an appiication under Section 13(2) of the Act, 1961 for fixation ef provisianal {ant by me triah Court. {3) it is the case of the plaintiff that the rent of the suit premises is Rs.5,000/— per month on the oiher hand the petitioneridefendant eays that the monthly rent is Rs.f5QOI—. (4} The plaintiff, in his :eply ta the defendant’s appfication under Section f3 (2) of C.P.C. has made a specif'sc and categorise! submission that the rent of an adjoining shop which is haif of the area u of the suit shop is Rs.925?l- per menth and that another E‘ accommodation situated behind the suit shop having an area of 200 rsqtt. fetches rent of Rs.3000/~ per month, therefore, the defendant’s P D R F ‘ Kl.— subm§$sion mat me tent of the present shop an area 409 sqft. to he RSA 500l- i5 cancocted‘ {5) The teamed €rial Court after considering the statement made by {he defendant supported with an affidavit has fixed §he provisiona en ! {t @ Rs.5m0/~. {6) fixed by the triai Court is not teasenable and tht statement made b a y the piaiiif has be accepted as gospei truth. He also submits that nt en the defendant i running dw-cieaning shop and does not ave the s a h income to pay the rent. He aieo submits that he rent has bn shewn t ee at Rs.50()0/— per month just fev fiiing the suit in the Qouit o District f Judge. Counsel fut the etitione has argued that the provisional re pr m (7) O the other hnd teamed counsei for the resondent/iaintitf n a pp suits that the triai Cour has assigned reason while fixin the ent at bm t g r Rs.5000f— per month. He also sbmits that this Court, under rtic 227 of the Contitution of indie may not interfere when provisionai ren has been fixed which is always subjectto the tinai decision o the suit. ' f (8) i have heard teamed oounsei for the parties and erused the p document fried in support oi the petition. {9) When the plaintiff, in his reply supported with an afiiciavit e’l categorically stated the rent of the adioining accommodation, the i i petitioner/defendant did not tile any affidavit or document in rebuttal. in this Court also it is mentioned in the petition thatAnnexure Pt? is a rent i receipt however the said document is not available on record. "i ‘ l i i i i u Aie s t ,3.- counsa for the petitioner tried m place before the Court a piece 9f paper showing that it is the rent receipt which is feferred in writ petition as Annexure P/7, however the papa! does not refer t9 the suit premises not it i3 ti’ded as rent receipt {10) Be that as it may, the trial Court, while fixing the provisionai rent, has relied on the statement gfatfwavit made by one party and has fixed the provisional rent, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial aourt tree exceeded its iurisdiction while deciding the provisienai rent. in a ease where none of the parties have submitted any documents and the matter is to be decided on the basis of statement made in the application and its reply by the other side, the trial Cdurt has to believe the version put—forth by the one party as against the version of the other parties and this Court in exercise of power under Article 22? of the Constitution of india cannot set—aside the order only on the ground that statement made by one party has been accepted. (11) Even otherwise, while fixing the reasonable rent the trial Qourt is institied in considering the statement made by the plaintiff about the rent of the adioining accommodation and more so when the said statement has not been rebutted by the defendant. in the opinion of this Court the approach of the trial Court is neither illegal nor perverse. Moreover fixation of provisional rent is only for the purpose of enabling party to make payment during payment of the suit and is always dependent upon final determination of the rent of the accommodation. l Any amount of rent deposrted by the tenant daring the pendency of rhe l suit is adiustabie towards the rent which is finally found to be the actual l. rent of the suit accommodation.