1

SBCivil Review Petition No.30/2010

In

SBCivil Writ Petition No.3984/2007

Shaukat Hussain & Anr.

v.

The District Judge, Udaipur & Ors.

Date of Order :: 18th August, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

Mr. Suresh Shrimali, for the petitioner. ....

To review the judgment 2.8.2010 this application is preferred.

It is contended by review petitioner that his argument was that the amount deposited as per Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, had to be considered first against the provisional rent determined under Section 13(3) of the Act and the excess amount that is in a tune of Rs.3840/- in the present case should have been adjusted as advance for the forthcoming months rent as held by this Court in 1987(2) RLR 147; 1987(1) RLR 556; 1987(2) WLN 175 and also by Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1981 SC 1657. According to counsel for the review petitioner the argument advanced has not been considered by this Court while deciding the writ petition under the judgment dated 2.8.2010. 2

From perusal of the judgment sought to be reviewed, it is apparent that the argument as advanced by counsel for the petitioner was considered and adjudicated by the Court. The Court also gave reference of the judgment given in Bimal Chand Jain v. Gopal Agarwal, AIR 1981 SC 1657. Suffice it to mention here that the case in hand factually stands on a different footing with the cases upon which reliance is placed. In the case in hand the provisional rent was determined by the trial court for the period from March 1997 to February 2006 and that amount was deposited on 28.5.2006. The trial court found default on part of the petitioner against the rent of March, 2006 and April, 2006. The rent of the month of March, 2006 became due on 15.4.2006 and admittedly till the date aforesaid even the provisional rent as ordered by the court was not deposited. Same was the position with regard to the rent relating to the month of April, 2006. The rent of the month of April, 2006 was to be deposited upto 15.5.2006 but that was not deposited at least prior to 28.5.2006. As such the default for the months of March and April 2006 is quite apparent.

In the case of Gopal Singh v. Smt. Suraj Devi, reported in 1987(II) RLR 147, this Court was dealing with a matter where an excess amount towards the monthly rent was deposited in advance, whereas in 3

the instant case the position is absolutely different as the rent was deposited subsequent to due date. Similarly, in the case of M/s Oriental Agencies, Jaipuria Mansion v. M/s Rajputana Stores, Jaipur, reported in 1987(2) WLN 175, the Court adjusted the excess amount deposited as per provisions of Section 19-A of the Rent Control Act against the rent of subsequent months and that can very well be done. However, if the excess amount is deposited after the due date then the issue relating to default is required to be dealt with differently. In the present case the excess amount was deposited on 28.5.2006 i.e. quite later to 15.4.2006 and 15.5.2006, the dates relevant for depositing the due rent for the months of March and April.

In Shanti Lal & Anr. v. Shiv Pal Singh, reported in 1987(1) RLR 556, also the rent was deposited in advance and that was required to be taken into consideration while dealing with the issue of default. In the instant matter, as already stated in preceding paras and also in the main judgment, that the default occurred due to non-payment of the rent for the month of March, 2006 upto 15.4.2006 and for the month of April, 2006 upto 15.5.2006. Admittedly on the dates concerned what to talk of excess amount or advance amount, even the provisional rent as determined by the trial court was not deposited. 4

As such, the review petition is absolutely misconceived. The same, therefore, is dismissed Rs.500/-.

( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.

kkm/ps.