SURAJ DEVI Vs. RAMESHWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff � landlord Smt. Suraj Devi w/o Shri Gopal Acharya aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial court of Additional District Judge No.1, Bikaner decreeing the Civil Suit No.188/1999 � Smt. Suraj Devi w/o Shri Gopal Acharya resident of Rani Bazar, Bikaner vs. Rameshwar Lal s/o Gordhan Lal Tanwar, Proprietor of M/s. Gordhan Lal Tanwar, Acharya Market, Rani Bazar, Bikaner under Section 6 for fixation of standard rent in respect of the suit shop situated at Rani Bazar, Bikaner, which was let out to the defendant � tenant in the year 1972 for the monthly rent of Rs.56/- per month only. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff � appellant on 22.12.1999.

(2.) THE plaintiff � appellant adduced an evidence Ex.1 � a Valuation Report of the Chartered Engineer PW-2 Mukesh Kumar Dhingra, who valued the said shop of 167 sq.ft. At Rs.9,18,806/- and taking 9% of the same as annual rent of Rs.82,693/- at the monthly rent of Rs.6,891/- per month. THE said Chartered Engineer � Mukesh Kumar Dhingra was already examined by the trial court as PW-2 on 10.08.2004. He admitted in his statement that Ex.1 � the Valuation Report, the name of the owner was inadvertently shown as that of the Gordhan Lal Tanwar, who is father of the defendant � tenant Rameshwar Lal instead of plaintiff � landlord and owner of the suit property Smt. Suraj Devi w/o Shri Gopal Acharya. He, however, submitted that he visited the suit shop and taking the necessary measurements, has valued the said property at the aforesaid figure.

(3.) ON merits, this Court finds that the court below has altogether ignored the Valuation Report Ex.1, which was duly proved by the PW-2 Mukesh Kumar Dhingra, a Chartered Engineer himself. The inadvertent mention of the name of Gordhan Lal Tanwar, father of the defendant � tenant Rameshwar Lal in the said Valuation Report as owner and also the fact that the plaintiff � owner Smt. Suraj Devi, did not meet personally the said Chartered Engineer for obtaining the said Valuation Report, are hardly any relevant factors to ignore the Valuation Report of the Chartered Engineer, who appeared before the Court as PW-2 and proved the said Valuation Report by proving his signatures thereon and explaining the aforesaid discrepancy. As against this, the oral evidence of interested witness defendant � tenant Rameshwar Lal himself, who referred to one tenancy created in favour of Mool Chand for Rs.1,000/- per month for a shop in near vicinity, without any documentary evidence has been made the basis for fixing the standard rent @ Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 22.12.1999.