SBCWP NO.10152/2009– JAGDISH LOHARIWALA V/S CHANDRA PRAKASH AND ORS. :JUDGMENT DTD.26.10.2009 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10152/2009 Jagdish Lohariwala Versus Chandra Prakash and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.V.K.Agarwal, for the petitioner Mr. A.K.Khatri, for the respondents. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 26th October, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dtd.23.9.2009 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner for re-determination of provisional rent under section 13(3) of the Rent Control Act, 1950. 2. The petitioner was added as party defendant in the eviction suit under the orders passed by this Court while deciding his writ petition No.6876/2009 – Jagdish Lohariwala V/s Chandra Prakash on 20.7.2009. After this, the said defendant – petitioner appears to have moved an application before the learned trial Court requesting for re- determination of provisional rent as per Section 13(3) of the Act, though it was earlier determined against the tenant Ramanand, with whom the petitioner claimed joint tenancy in the suit premises. SBCWP NO.10152/2009– JAGDISH LOHARIWALA V/S CHANDRA PRAKASH AND ORS. :JUDGMENT DTD.26.10.2009 2/3 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by refusal to redetermine the provisional rent by the impugned order dated 23.9.2009, the defence of the present petitioner, later on added defendant, is also bound to be struck off as per Section 13(5) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, whereas earlier determination of provisional rent was done qua the defendant Ramanand only and not against the present petitioner – defendant who was later on added in the said suit for eviction. He further submitted that the plaintiff – landlord has moved an application under Section 13(5) of the Act for striking off the defence of the present petitioner and same is coming up for arguments before the learned trial Court tomorrow. He however, submits that consequence of impugned order dtd.23.9.2009 shall be that the defence of the present petitioner would also be struck off. 4. These submissions are controverted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff – respondent. 5. Having heard the learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the same does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The provisional rent once determined under Section 13(3) of the Act need not be determined again and again for the defendant, who was later on added as party in the suit. The same is determined in SBCWP NO.10152/2009– JAGDISH LOHARIWALA V/S CHANDRA PRAKASH AND ORS. :JUDGMENT DTD.26.10.2009 3/3 respect of suit premises and not for each of the joint tenant separately. Admittedly, the defence of the present petitioner, later on added as party in the suit, admittedly, has not so far been struck off by the learned trial Court in accordance with Section 13(5) of the Act. Therefore, it is premature for this Court to pronounce upon this aspect of the matter and say that whether the defendant of the present petitioner shall be struck off or not. If any such order is passed, it goes without saying that the present petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate remedy in law against such order, but the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court on 23.9.2009 whereby it has been said that such provisional rent need not be determined again at the instance of present petitioner, later on added as a defendant, does not require any interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.S-3. Ss/-