[2025:RJ-JP:40132] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2043/2004 1. Shambhu Dayal S/o Anandi Lal 2. Nathi Bai ) 3. Rukmani Bai ) daughters of Anandi Lal 4. Usha Bai ) Residents of Near Bheruji, Mokhapada, Kota ----Defendants-Petitioners Versus 1. Additional District Judge No. 5, Kota 2. Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), No.1 (South), Kota 3. Brijnandan Gautam son of Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal, resident of Maukhapada, Kota ----Non-Petitioners For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Naruka for Mr. Rinesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 03/10/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 09.03.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.5, Kota (for brevity “the learned Appellate Court”) whereby, while dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.70/2003 preferred by the petitioners/defendants/tenants (for short “the defendants”), the order dated 10.05.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1 (South), Kota (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial Court”) in Case No.257/2000 striking off the defence, has been affirmed. [2025:RJ-JP:40132] (2 of 5) [CW-2043/2004] The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Kanhaiya Lal filed a suit for eviction against Shri Anandi Lal. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 20.08.1990, determined the provisional rent @ of ₹300/- per month. Thereafter, both, the plaintiff as well as the defendant, expired and their legal representatives were brought on record. On account of death of the plaintiff, his wife Smt. Mohani Bai and his son Shri Brijnandan-the respondent No.3 were brought on record. The respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for brevity “the Act of 1950”) alleging that since, the defendants have not paid the provisional rent since April, 2000, their defence be struck off. The defendants in their reply to the application submitted that since, the bank had informed them that number of joint bank account of Smt. Mohani Bai and Shri Brijnandan was 22025, the rent was deposited in that account and they came to know of the separate bank account of the respondent No.3 only on 02.09.2002 thereafter, the provisional rent for the month of September, 2002 was deposited in his separate bank account. It was, therefore, submitted that the error, if any, was bonafide and needed to be condoned. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 10.05.2003, while allowing the application filed by the respondent No.3, struck off the defence of the defendants which was unsucessfully challenged by them by way of an appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide order impugned dated 09.03.2004. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendants submits that since, after death of the original landlord-Shri [2025:RJ-JP:40132] (3 of 5) [CW-2043/2004] Kanhaiya Lal, his wife Smt. Mohani Bai acquired the status of “landlord”, and even after her deletion from the array of the plaintiffs, her status continued as such, it could not have been held that they erred in depositing the provisional rent in her bank account. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the respondent No.3 under Section 13(5) of the Act of 1950 be dismissed. None for the respondent No.3 despite service. Heard. Considered. While allowing the application filed by the respondent No.3 under Section 13(5) of the Act of 1950 and striking off defence of the defendants, the learned trial Court has held that after death of the original landlord-Shri Kanhaiya Lal, his legal representatives were taken on record on 07.07.2000 and thereafter, the defendants filed an application dated 12.05.2000 on 07.08.2000 seeking information about their bank account but, no order could be passed on that application. Thereafter, with consent of the respective parties, name of Smt. Mohani Bai was deleted from the array of the plaintiffs vide order dated 10.09.2001 and remaining sole plaintiff Shri Brijnandan disclosed his bank account No.20538 on 02.09.2002. It was held that in reply to allegation by the respondent No.3 that the defendants have not paid the provisional rent since April, 2000, they claimed to have deposited the same till August, 2002 in the bank account No.22025 claiming the same to be the joint account of Smt. Mohani Bai and Shri Brijnandan but, it is revealed that this account is in the exclusive name of Smt. Mohani Bai. The learned trial Court found deposition of the [2025:RJ-JP:40132] (4 of 5) [CW-2043/2004] provisional rent by the defendants in her bank account from 07.07.2000 till 10.09.2001 to be justified as she was one of the plaintiffs but, found no justification for deposition of rent in her bank account post her deletion from the array of the plaintiffs on 10.09.2001. Contention of the defendants to adjust the provisional rent deposited in the bank account of Smt. Mohani Bai in the bank account of plaintiff-Shri Brijnandan was rejected in absence of any such provision. Similarly, their contention as to condonation of delay in the wake of subsequent withdrawal of the provisional rent by Smt. Mohani Bai from her bank account was also negated as she was no more plaintiff w.e.f. 10.09.2001. The aforesaid findings have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence on record. It was further held by the learned Appellate Court that on 07.08.2000, late Anandi Lal has filed an application before the learned trial Court seeking information about the bank account of the legal heirs with specific endorsement that “cSad dh lwpuk ij muds yM+ds ds [kkrk esa tek djokuk pkyw dj fn;k gSA”. It was held by the learned Appellate Court that despite making a categorical statement in the application that the provisional rent was being deposited in the bank account of the respondent No.3, they have miserably failed to establish so rather, on their own, they started depositing the provisional rent in the bank account of one of the plaintiffs only, i.e., Smt. Mohani Bai and continued to do so even after her deletion from the array of the plaintiffs on 10.09.2001. After going through the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court and material available on record, this Court is in respectful agreeent with the [2025:RJ-JP:40132] (5 of 5) [CW-2043/2004] same. Although, in the reply filed by the defendants to the application filed under Section 13(5) of the Act of 1950, it was claimed that the account No.22025 was the joint account of Smt. Mohani Bai and Shri Brijnandan but, they failed to produce any material to substantiate the same. This Court also finds that there was no justification for deposition of the provisional rent in the bank account of Smt. Mohani Bai even after her deletion from the array of the plaintiffs by the learned trial Court vide order dated 10.09.2001. This Court finds no force in the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the defendants that even after deletion of her name from the array of the plaintiffs since, Smt. Mohai Bai continued to remain landlord by operation of law, deposition of the provisional rent in her bank account was valid. At the cost of repetition, it is held that after her deletion from the array of the plaintiffs, she was not entitled to receive the provisional rent. In view thereof, this Court finds no patent illegality or perversity in the order impugned so as to warrant its interference under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/18