JUDGMENT
O.P. Bishnoi, J.
1. This revision petition has been addressed against an order dated 26.3.1999 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (JD) (West), Ajmer, whereby an order determining the provisional rent was passed. The plaintiff filed a suit for rent and ejectment on various grounds including legal default in the payment of rent. The contention was to the effect that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 350/- p.m. and no rent was paid after 31.8.1992. The defendant in his written statement came with a contention that the agreed monthly rent was Rs. 180/- only.
2. On 3.2.1999, the Court was to determine the provisional rent and the cousnel for the plaintiff was present. Till 12.45 P.M., learned Counsel for the defendant did not turn up and the Court passed the impugned order whereby provisional rent was determined at the rate of Rs. 350/- P.M. Before the order could be completed, the learned Counsel for the defendant appeared and moved an application to the effect that he be heard before passing the order. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 26.3.1999. Feeling aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed on behalf of the defendant. The learned Counsel for the respondent is present but has not argued the matter on the gorund that he has no instructions from his client.
3. I have gone through the matter and considered the impugned order.
4. The learned Counsel for th petitioner has pressed into service the following case law:
(1) Savithri Amma Seethamma v. Aratha Karthy and Ors., . (2) Pannalal v. Nandram, 1955 RLW 551 and (3) Indian Oil Corporation v. Lakshmi Shankaranarayan and Ors., ,
As pointed out earlier, there was a dispute in respect of the agreed rate of rent. The contention of the plaintiff was to the effect that the premises were rented out at the rate of Rs. 350/- p.m., whereas the contention of the defendant was to the effect that the same were rented out at the rate of Rs. 180/- p.m. Needless to say that the learned Court was expected to adjudicate on this point and was to discuss and decide as to the contention of which party was acceptable. He did not apply his mind towards the problem and passed the order as if there was no dispute in respect of the rate of rent. The order, thus, was passed without application of mind. Even if none was present on behalf of the defendant, it was the duty of the Court to consider the rival contentions and then come at a proper conclusion. No such thing was done.
5. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The orders passed on 3.2.1999 and 26.3.1999 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court with the direction that he will hear the parties on the point and then pass an order according to law.