The finality of an order deciding the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the legality of the trial court's determination of provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Act, 1950.

1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner-plaintiff has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 24th July, 2001, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar, set-aside the orders dated 17th August, 2000 and 18th July, 2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sikar.

2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction relating to suit property on the grounds of material alteration and non user against the respondents-defendants no. 3 and 4 as also the proforma respondents-defendants no. 5 and 6. The respondents no. 3 and 4 filed the written statement gainsaying the allegations made in the plaint. Based on the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issue:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property and whether there is a relationship of tenant and landlord between the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 and 2?

3. Having recorded the evidence of both the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, decided the said issue in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff vide his order dated 18th July, 2000. It has emerged on record that no revision was preferred by the respondents-defendants against the said order in the High Court and thus, this order dated 18th July, 2000 (Annexure-1) attained finality. Thereafter the learned Civil Judge determined the provisional rent of the suit premises under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (here-in-after to be referred to as "Act, 1950") on 17th August, 2000. The provisional rent was determined at Rs. 6050/- for the period from 1st August, 1990 to 31st July, 2000 and an amount of Rs. 1830/- was allowed as interest on the determined amount of rent. Thus, an amount of Rs. 7880/- were directed to be deposited with a further direction that the monthly rent shall be deposited by the defendants on the prescribed date of every month.

4. The respondents-defendants preferred an appeal against both the orders dated 18th July, 2000 (Annexure-1) and 17th August, 2000 (Annexure-2) in the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar. The learned Additional District Judge, set-aside both the impugned orders on 24th July, 2001. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a revision against the order dated 24th July, 2001 in the High Court and the High Court, having found the revision petition "not maintainable", dismissed the same vide order dated 26th May, 2003. The petitioner-plaintiff, on account of there being no other alternate, efficacious and equally effective remedy available to him, filed the instant writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a scathing attack on the impugned order dated 24th July, 2001 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar contending the same to be arbitrary and contrary to law. He further canvassed that the order dated 18th July, 2000 passed by the trial court decided the issue with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This order is not appealable and no revision was preferred against the said order by the respondents-defendants no. 4 to 6 resulting the order to have attained the finality. So far as the order dated 17th August, 2000 is concerned, the same was albeit appealable, but the learned trial court provisionally determined the rent under Section 13(3), which was finally to be decided under the provisions contained under Section 13(7) of the Act, 1950 at the time of final adjudication of the suit. Therefore, the appellate court ought not to have legally interfered with the order dated 17th August, 2000. In view of this legal position, the learned trial court committed a grave error in interfering with both the orders dated 18th July, 2000 as also 17th August, 2000 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sik