BRAHMA NAND Vs. DURGA PRASHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY the impugned judgment and decree, the learned lower appellate court has dismissed the plaintiff's suit for fixation of stand rent, which was decreed by the learned trial court.

(3.) TAKING up the finding on issue No. 2, the learned trial court had passed the judgment on 25. 4. 96, while the learned lower appellate court decided the appeal on 5. 10. 98. A look at the findings shows, that the learned lower appellate court was labouring under misconception, to the effect that, under proviso to Section 6 (2) (b), the standard rent can be fixed at 2 and a half times of the basic rent, but then since the plaintiff has not been able to prove, that the circumstances exist entitling him to have the rent increased by two and a half times, and therefore, the issue was decided against the plaintiff. In other words, the learned lower appellate court had proceeded on the basis that for having the standard rent determined, by having it enhanced to two and a half times, landlord is to establish by positive evidence that the agreed rent is low. Suffice it to say that this legal assumption is not correct, inasmuch as, this court in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 802/98 (Bhanwar Lal vs. Hanif (1)), decided on 19. 11. 03 has held as under: ``that for maintainability of the suit under Section 6, the only requirement is; that the rent should be claimed to be `excessive' or `low', and need not be proved to be `excessive' or `low'. In this regard, it may be observed that a look at the provisions of Section 6 (2) again, shows that once the Court entertains the suit, the Court is to hold such summary enquiry as it may consider just and proper, and then is to determine the standard rent for such premises, and in doing so, has to act according to the principles laid down. Significantly, once the suit is entertained, the Court has to determine the standard rent, and is not given any option to rest contended by simply holding that the agreed rent is not proved to be excessive or to be low. According to Section 6 (2), as it earlier existed on the statute book, the specific parameters were laid down for determination of standard rent, and the Court had no jurisdiction to travel beyond that. A proper comprehension of those provisions does show, that there could well nigh be position, where the land lord may file a suit for fixation of standard rent claiming the agreed rent to be low, and after entertaining the suit, the Court holds enquiry, and arrives at a figure of permissible standard rent according to the prevailing provisions of Section 6 (2), and that figure could, well nigh come to a figure, far below the agreed rent, even in that event despite the plaintiff's claiming the agreed rent to be low, the Court will be required to make determination of standard rent at a figure still lower, then the agreed rent. This was an unavoidable eventuality, and this clearly shows, that it cannot be said, that for investing the Court with the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for determination of standard rent, the agreed rent should be proved to be ``low'' or ``excessive'' as the case may be. Thus, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the learned lower Appellate Court could not reduce the rent, without it being proved on the side of the defendant, and without it coming to a finding, about the agreed rent being excessive. ''