SHAMBHU RAM Vs. KANHYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revjdional applications, which have been referred to this bench, raised an identical question of law. Thal question is whether a landlord can under the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (No. XVII of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act) enhance the rent which was once agreed upon between the landlord and his tenant in cases not falling under sec. 10 thereof, and where the tenant does not agree to the increases desired by the landlord, apply to court for such increase and the court can entertain a suit for the purpose, and decree such increase as may be resonalble in the circumstance of the case.

(2.) THE cases before us have certain broad features which may be briefly stated. In all of them, the landlord charged a certain rent by an agreement under tenancies which commenced prior to 1946. In all of them the landlord gave a notice to the tenant, after the introduction of the Rajasthan Act, that the fromer wished to increase the rent. THE tenant declined to pay the increased rent suggested. THEreupon the landlord filed a suit praying for the desired enhancement. This was claimed apart altogether from the grounds mentioned in sec. 10 of the Act. Both lower courts held that these cases fell outside the purview of sed. 6 of the Rajasthan Act, and, therefore the court had no jurisdiction to fix a standard rent. THEy also held that sec. 11 had no application as any increase under that section could be asked for only in those cases which fell within the four corners of sec. 10 and as the cases under consideration admittedly were outside the purview of that section, the courts dismissed the suits. Hence these revisions.

(3.) THIS case was also brought by the landlords in revision No. 132 against tenants Ramchander and another. The latter have been paying an agreed rent of Rs. 8/- p. m. for the shop in question from 4. 4. 46. The tenancy has been in existence from before and the agreed rent in 1942 was Rs 7/ -. p. m. The plaintiffs gave the defendant notice under sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Act to pay rent at an enhanced rate, namely, Rs. 17/8/ -. Both courts dismissed the suit as unentertainable on the legal view held by them. As we have held this view to be erroneous and for the same reasons as in revision No. 132, we allow this revision, set aside the decrees of the courts below and send the case back to the trial court with a direction that it will make a proper inquiry according to law and decide the case afresh. The parties will bear their own costs of this revision. The costs of the lower court shall also be similarly borne. The costs in the trial court hitherto and further costs shall abide the result. Revision No. 134 of 1953. Mahaveer Chand vs. Ganpat Singh