NON- 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        … Respondent

O R D E R  

1. Leave granted.   

2. This 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 part.   

3. The  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.   

4. It 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.   

5. Feeling 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.   

6. However,  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.   

7. With these observations, this appeal is disposed

of.  There will be no order as to costs.

4

…………..………………J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE ]  

NEW DELHI:                            …...………………………J.

December 08, 2008                 [V.S.SIRPURKAR]

5