S C MALHOTRA Vs. BILAM KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil misc. appeal under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950) has been filed by the defendant-tenant (appellant) against the order dtd. 5. 4. 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur by which in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Act of 1950 for determination of standard rent, the learned Additional Dist. Judge determined the provisional rent of the suit premises @ Rs. 3,000/- per month in place of Rs. 200/- per month.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: i) That the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1950 for determination of the standard rent of the house No. 786, situated at Chopasani Road, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the house in question) alleging inter alia that in the lower storey of that house in question, the appellant-plaintiff for last more than 40 years. IT was further stated that the rented premises were purchased by the husband of the respondent and prior to that the defendant-appellant was tenant in that premises and area of the disputed residential accommodation is near about 1000 sq. ft. IT was further stated that initially the rented premises were taken on rent by the defendant-appellant in the year 1953 and monthly rent was Rs. 27/- and during the course of arguments, it has further been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that since 1960 the rent was being paid @ Rs. 200/- per month, but since now valuation of the property has increased substantially and as per the valuation report, the prevailing market value of the rented premises is near about Rs. 16,00,000/- and if the rent is assessed on the basis of prevailing rate, it would come near about Rs. 12735/- per month and therefore the standard rent of the rented premises be determined and in that suit, a prayer was also made that provisional rent under Section 7 of the Act of 1950 be also determined. ii) After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Dist. Judge vide order dtd. 5. 4. 2004 determined the provisional rent as Rs. 3000/- per month in place of Rs. 200/- per month after taking into consideration the valuation report as well as other facts of the case. iv) Aggrieved from the order dtd. 5. 4. 2004, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(3.) THE term `standard rent' has been defined in Sec. 3 (vi) of the Rent Control Act, which is reproduced here for ready reference:- " (vi) "standard rent" used in relation to any premises, means the rent therefore determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act. "