DAULATRAM Vs. CHATUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the plaintiffs against an order of Munsif Barmer dismissing their suit for enhancement of rent brought by them under sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the rent had already been determined under the Marwar House Rent Control Act 1949, which was confirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge, Balotra.

(2.) THE premises in question consisted of two shops which were constructed afresh and let out for the first time after 1st January, 1946 to the defendants in May 1948 at an agreed rent of Rs. 55/-per month. After the coming into force of the Marwar House Rent Control Act 1949, the Collector fixed the fair rent of the premises under that Act at Rs. 20/- per month on 3. 1. 50. A revision application was filed against that order which was rejected by the Board of Revenue on 5. 2. 54. THE present suit was then instituted on 6. 2. 56 for the enhancement of rent to Rs. 55/- per month under sec. 11 of the present Act. THE court below held that the Marwar House Rent Control Act 1949 being one of the Acts repealed under sec. 30 (1) of the Act the fair rent demand under it by any authority could not be disturbed in view of the second proviso to sub-sec. (2) of the sec. 6 of the Act which runs as follows : - "provided further that where the fair rent or standard standard rent for any premises has been determined or redetermined by any authority under any law or order repealed by sec. 30 of this Act and the amount of such fair rent or standard rent is the same as would be determinable as rent by the court under this section, the fair rent or standard rent previously determined or redetermined shall not be disturbed. " In my opinion this proviso has been misinterpretd. It only lays down that if the amount as determined under the present Act under sec. 6 conies to the same amount as the fair rent determined under the old Act then the determinatian under the old Act shall not be disturbed. It does not lav down that the court is prevented from fixing the standard rent at an amount higher than the fair rent fixed under the old Act, in case the court conies to the finding that the standard rent under sec. 6 of the Act comes to a higher amount.