BHABHOOTMAL Vs. HASTIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are connected civil revision applications arising out of a suit for enhancement of rent brought by Mukanchand against Bhabhootmal. Hastimal and others are the legal representatives of Mukanchand.

(2.) THE relevant facts necessary for the disposal of these revision applications are these. THE plaintiff is the owner of a shop situated in Moti Katra at Pali. THE defendant has been his tenant since 12. 12. 42. THE shop was first let out to the defendant on 12. 12. 42 on a rent of Rs. 350/- per year. On 27. 5. 48 there was a mutual agreement between the parties under which the rent was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per year. THE defendant executed a fresh rent-note on 27. 5. 48 in pursuance of this agreement. THE present suit for enhancement of rent was instituted on 19. 8. 54 on the allegation that there was a general rise in the rates of rent of shops at Pali and that the rent of similar shops was not less than Rs. 1,000/- per year. It was however stated that as the shop was first let on 1st day of January, 1943 on a rent of Rs. 350/- per year its basic rent was Rs. 350/- per year and it was not permissible under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (which was applied to Pali on 23rd December, 1950) to increase the rent beyond two and a half times the basic rent. It was accordingly prayed that the rent be enhanced to two and a half times the basic rent namely Rs. 875/-per year.

(3.) I accordingly hold that what was held in Shambhu Ram's case was that where the premises were first let out after the first day of January 1946 the agreed rent could not be enhanced. Where however they were first let out before 1st January 1946 the agreed rent can be enhanced to the limits laid down in sec. 6 (2) (a) and (b) on grounds contained in sec. 6 (3 ). I therefore find that the rent agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendant on 27. 5. 48 can be enhanced if a case for enhancement is made out on the basis of considerations mentioned in sec. 6 (3) of the Act, even if it is assumed that a new tenancy was created in favour of the defendant on that date.