S.N. BHARGAVA, J.—This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Hindaun City, rejecting the application of the petitioner-applicant filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 filed a suit on 31.7.1984 for eviction against the defehdant-non-petitioner No. 2 on several grounds including subletting the disputed shop to the petitioner. In para 5 of the plaint, it has been stated as under:-

^^mDr nqdku tksM+k rHkh ls izfroknh us fcuk btktr ds oknh fdlh eqdsk y?kq m|ksx fg.MkSu izksijkbZVj lrhk pUn tSu dks lcySV dj fn;k gS

3. The suit was contested by the defendent and in reply of para 4 of the

plaint, it has been submitted as under:

^^izfroknh fnukad 31-3-81 rd dk fdjk;k oknh dks ;Fkk le; vnk dj pqdk gSA blds ckn fnukad 1-4-81 ls oknh us mDr tksM+k nqdku eqrnkfok esllZ eqdsk y?kq m|ksx] fg.MkSu izksijkbZVj lrhk pUn iq= uRFkhyky tkfr tSu fuoklh fg.MkSu dks 200@& :i;k ekgokj fdjk;s ij ns nh rFkk oknh fnukad 1-4-81 ls mDr eqdsk y?kq m|ksx] fg.MkSu ls ekgokjh fdjk;k ysdj fdjk;k izkfIr dk bUnzkt mDr eqdsk y?kq m|ksx dh jksdM+ cgh esa djok dj bUnzkt ds uhps vius gLrk{kj djrs jgsA ckn esa 1-3-83 ds ckn ds fdjk;k vnk;xh ds bUnzkt ds uhps oknh us gLrk{kj ;g dg dj ugh fd, fd vHkh rqels fyf[kr esa fdjk;kukek ugha fy[kk;k gS blfy, vxyh ubZ lky ds kq: esa tc eqdsk y?kq m|ksx ds uke ls fdjk;k ukek fy[kokÅWxk rc fdjk;kukek ij tek dj fn;k d:Wxk] bl izdkj eqdsk y?kq m|ksx us oknh dks fn- 30-11-83 rd dk fdjk;k vnk dj fn;kA mlds ckn dk fdjk;k mDr eqdsk y?kq m|ksx ds }kjk ;Fkk le; ckj ckj VS.Mj djus ds ckotwn oknh us fdjk;k c<+kus dh fu;r ls Lohdkj ugha fd;kA

4. Written statement was filed on 5.11.1984. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to this part of the written statement on 23.4,1985 denying the allegations of the written statement.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the trial court determined the rent u/s 13 (3) of the Act which order was confirmed in appeal by order dated 23.11.1989 wherein also there is some discussion about this aspect. The trial court framed the issues. The petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. on 23.1.1987 duly supported by an affidavit, to which a reply was also filed by the plaintiff on 16.1.1990, which is also supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff. Application of the petitioner filed under O. 1, R. 10 CPC was dismissed by order dated 23.1.1990 and it is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

6. Meanwhile the trial court framed the issues in which Issue No. 3 reads as under:-

^^vk;k izfroknh us oknxzLr ifjlj eqdsk y?kq m|ksx fg.MkSu ds izksijkbZVj lrhk tSu dks lc ysV dj fn;k gS\

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that before filing the suit, a notice dated 16.1.1984 had been received from the plaintiff which was replied jointly on 15.2.1984 and in the written statement also, the case of the petitioner has been clearly stated. The petitioner thereafter had given a notice to the plaintiff on 26.3.1984, to know his bank account number so that petitioner could deposit rent regularly every month, but the plaintiff vide its reply dated 31.3.54 wrote back that since the petitioner was not his tenant, it was not necessary for him (plaintiff) to give his bank account number. Thereafter the petitioner deposited rent u/s 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act). He has drawn my attention to the original account book wherein the entries showing payment of rent made by the petitioner to the plaintiff had been signed by the plaintiff in token of having received the rent. Therefore, it was the duty of the plaintiff himself to have impleaded the petitioner as a party. The petitioner had also moved an application in the appellate court for impleading him as a party to the suit but the appellate court vide its order dated 9-10-1987 refused the application on the ground that the suit was pending in the trial co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document