FIRM SIRILAL MANGILAL Vs. SUGANCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision by the tenant Sirilal Mangilal against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District. It arises out of a suit by Sugan Chand and three other landlords against the appellant for fixation of standard rent under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). The suit was decreed by the learned Munsiff, Kishangarh and standard rent at Rs. 204/-per annum was fixed. Against this decree of the learned Munsif both the parties went in appeal and one of the points taken by the tenant in the lower appellate court was that the landlord was not entitled to bring a suit for fixation of standard rent under sec. 6 of the Act when there was an agreed rent. It was submitted that the agreed rent between the parties was Rs. 240/- and therefore, the landlord could not file a suit for the fixation of standard rent. It was argued that it is only in the case of a tenant that a suit could be brought for fixation of standard rent even though there might be an agreed rent. THIS contention of the tenant was overruled by the learned District Judge and his appeal was dismissed on other grounds too. The appeal filed by the landlord was however partially allowed and the rent was raised to Rs. 300/- per year instead of Rs. 2)4/ -. It is against this judgment and decree that the tenant has come in revision to this Court.

(2.) IT was argued by Mr. D. P. Gupta on behalf of the applicant that the present suit by the landlord was under sec. 6 of the Act for fixation of standard rent and that under sec. 6 a suit for fixation of standard rent could be brought only when there was no agreed rent or when the rent agreed upon was claimed to be excessive. As in this case the rent agreed upon was not claimed to be excessive, therefore, no suit could be brought by the landlord under sec. 6 of the Act. IT was argued that even the learned District Judge has not decreed the suit treating it to one under sec. 6 of the Act, but he has gone out of his way to decide that the suit could be taken to be one under sec. 11 of the Act and treating it as such he has increased the rent. IT was urged that sec. 11 lays down a procedure for increase in rent and doss not say under what circumstances rent can be increased. IT was urged that it is under sec. 10 of the Act that conditions under which rent or standard rent is liable to increase, are given. None of the conditions given in sec. 10 are satisfied in the present case and, therefore, the landlord was not entitled to bring a suit even under sec. 11 of the Act.