JUDGMENT
Milap Chandra, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge. Churu dated January 5, 1989 by which he determined the amount of Rs. 9,960/- as rent at rate of Rs. 150/- per month and interest Under Section 13(3), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here in after to be called `the Act’), the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit in the Court of District Judge, Churu for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable bona fide necessity with the allegations, in short, that premises situated Rajwala Quan in Sardarshahar town has been purchased by the plaintiff through a registered sale-deed dated July 2, 1982 from their owners Sumermal, Anoopchand, Govind Ram, Mohan Lal, Chaturbhuj, Jaikaran and Smt. Kishni Devi. The stop existing in the aforesaid premises is in occupation and possession of the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. Despite several demands and registered notice, the defendants have not paid rent to the plaintiff since the date of the purchase of the premises by him. The defendants admit in their joint written-statement that they are in occupation and possession of the suit shop. ‘The remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. They have further averred that the suit shop was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 10/- about 18 years ago from its owner Kishan Lal. He agreed to sell it to them for Rs. 4,000/- and executed an agreement for sale in their favour after obtaining the full consideration of Rs. 4,000/- Since then, they are in occupation and possession of the suit shop as its owners. It has further been averred that the relationship of land lord and tenant does not exist in between the parties, the suit is not maintainable, rent of more than 3 years is time-barred and a huge amount has been spent by the defendants in raising construction-in the suit shop.
3. Before determining the amount of rent and interest Under Section 13(3) of the Act, the learned trial court heard the parties on this point. It was contended on behalf of the defendant-appellants that there is no question of the determination of the amount of remand interest as the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist in between the parties the rent of more than 3 years is time-barred and there existed no material on record to show that rent was being paid by the defendants at rate of Rs. 150/- per month. In reply, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment, ejectment has also been sought on the ground of default in payment of rent Admittedly, the defendants were inducted as tenants by the previous owner Kishan Lal, the suit premises has been purchased by the plaintiff through a registered sale deed from his legal representatives and heirs and the alleged agreement for sale did not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the defendants.
4. The same arguments have been reiterated by the learned consel for the parties in this Court. The learned Counsel for the defendant-appellants has relied upon Baidhya Nath v. Jyotishna Rani [1912 RCR 658 (Cal.)]. The The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent relied upon Shri Ram Prasad Shah v. Jagannath [1976 SC 2335], Ganesh Narain v. Ranchhor Das [1978 RLW 388] and Jai Narayan v. Meena Devi [1978 WLN(UC) 473].
5. Admittedly, the defendants were inducted in the suit shop as tenants by its previous owner late Kishan Lal. The photo stat copy, paper No. 6-C/2-7 of the shows that the suit shop has been purchased by the plaintiff from its owners in the year 1982. It is admitted in para No. 19 of the written statement that the plaintiff’s notice was duly received by the defendants and its reply was not given. A copy, paper ho. C-6/8, of this notice has been filed. It is not the case of the defendants that after the execution of the agreement for sale, sale-deed was executed by late Shri Kishan Lal in their favour It is clearly provided in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act that contract for sale of immovable property does not, of itself, create any interest in, or charge on, such property. Admittedly, nothing has been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff after the execution of the said sale-deed. The learned trial court has determined the amount of refit which was within limitation on the date of institution of the suit. No rent of the time-barred period has been included in the amount determined. It has been held in Ganesh Narayan v. Ranchhor Das [1978 RLW 388 para 9] as under:
I am clearly of the opinion that in a suit for eviction based on the ground set forth in clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. with or without any other grounds referred to in that Sub-section before determining the amount of rent or interest as contemplated by Section 13(3) in case of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the defendant, it is not necessary for the court to hold an enquiry much less a summary enquiry for the deciding the question of relationship of landlord and tenant. Section 13(3) becomes applicable when the condition therein is satisfied even before the determination of the question whether the defendant is a tenant.
6. It has been observed in Jainarayan v. Smt. Meena Devi [1978 WLN (UC) 473] para 7 as follows:
The determination Under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 has to be made either on the first date of hearing of the suit or at any date at least before the issues are framed in the suit and as such determination is merely provisional in nature as such no enquiry, and much less, a sumarry enquiry, is contemplated for that purpose. If the court, on the basis of the averments made in the plaint, is of the view that the suit is one for eviction of a tenant on the ground that the tenant bad neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months had has been filed by a person who claims himself to be the landlord of such premises, then there is nothing contained in the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 13 or any other provision of the Act to preclude the court from proceeding with the determination of the amount of arrears of rent and interest thereon under the aforesaid provisions. There cannot be a decision of the question of relationship of landlord and tenant without making an enquiry which includes the taking evidence, both documentary as well as oral, and that cannot take place even before the issues are framed in the suit. As already mentioned above, Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act is operative at the stage of the first date of hearing of the suit or such date as may be fixed by the trial court and which should not be later than three months from the date of the filing of the written statement but which should be before the framing of the issues. In such circumstances, it is clear from the very provisions of Sub-section (3) itself, that no enquiry of any sort not even a summary enquiry, is envisaged at such a stage when the determination requisite Under Sub-section (3) of sec 13 is to be made. If the plaint contains a reasonable recital that a relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff and the defendant and also that the tenant was a defaulter in payment of the rent within the meaning of Sub-section (a) of Section 13(1) of the Act, then the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 13 is at once attracted, without any thing more.
In Baidhyanath v. Smt. Jyotishna Rani, 1972 RCR 658, was duly considered in Ganeshnarayan v. Ranchhor Das, 1972 RLW 388 para 9. In connection with this case, it has been observed as follows:
In the Calcutta” case (2), Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (No. XII of 1956) came up for consideration. In that case, an application Under Section 17(3) praying for striking out the defence of the defendant tenant against delivery of possession was submitted by the landlord. The tenant opposed the application by filing a petition of objection thereto. In that petition of objection, the tenant challenged the owner-ship of the opposite party (land lord) in respect of the suit premises and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the opposite party and the petitioner In that connection, it was observed that according to the petitioner, the provision of the Act does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the Case ‘that the court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for his eviction the against the petitioner’. The provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act are quite different from the provisions which were for consideration before his Lordship of the Calcutta High Court. The determination Under Section 13(3) of the Act is provisional and that has to made either on the first, date of hearing or on any other date not more than three months from the date of the filing of the written statement and before the settlement of the issues. The Calcutta decision is not of any avail to the learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioner.
I respectfully agree with the above-quoted observations of their Lordships, There appears to be no justification for taking a different view and referring the matter to a Larger Bench.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, and circumstances and observations, the trial Court did not commit any error or illegality in passing the impugned order. Thus there is no force in the appeal.
8. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
