GOPICHAND Vs. DHANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by a learned Single Judge and the question referred to us as arising out of the first proviso to Sub-section. (2) of Section 6 of the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction, Act, 1950 (Act No. 17 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act) has been formulated as follows : "in cases of premises first let out after 1-1-48 can the standard rent be fixed below the basic rent thereof ?"

(2.) IN order to appreciate the point referred to us a few facts may be stated. The tenant who is the respondent before us filed a suit for fixation of standard rent with respect to the suit shop for which a rent of Rs. 60/ had been agreed by him to be paid to the landlord. The latter resisted the suit on the ground that the whole shop had been let out by him to the respondent for the first time on the 1st day of february, 1957 and, therefore, the standard rent could not be fixed below the figure of Rs. 60/- per mensem, which according to him, was the basic rent within the meaning of Section 6 (2) of the Act. This plea was repelled by the trial Court which held, that the agreed rent was excessive and consequently it was fixed at rs. 40/- per mensem. The landlord went up in appeal to the Senior Civil Judge, jaipur, who modified the standard rent fixed by the trial Court and raised it to Rs. 44/- per mensem. Thereupon the landlord preferred the present revision, which came for disposal before a learned Single Judge of this Court. One of the points raised before him was that in the case of premises first let out after 1st January, 1946, the rent agreed between the parties would be the basic rent and that being so the Courts would not be justified in fixing the standard rent below that limit. The learned Single Judge seems to have been Inclined to accept this view but he was faced with the decision of Wanchoo C. J. in Gurbux Rai v. Aman Singh, ILR (1955) 5 Raj 3 78. The precise point which has been raised in this case came up for consideration before the learned Chief Justice, as he then was, and he held as follows :

(3.) AS against this reliance was placed by the landlord on the observations made in a Bench decision of this Court in Shambhu Ram v. Kanhiyalal, ILR (1955) 5 Raj 253, to which one of us was a party. The relevant observations are to the following effect: