NARAIN LAL GOUR Vs. KARONA SAHU CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 5

(2.) THIS is a revision petition under section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as "the Act") against the judgment and decree dated 14. 11. 1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota in Civil Regular Appeal No. 48/83 reversing the judgment and decree dated 4. 2. 1982 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Kota in civil suit No. 5/77 (234/80 ).

(3.) THERE is no dispute between the parties that the shop was let out to the non-petitioner on 1. 6. 1974 at the rent of Rs. 400/- per month. The only issue to be considered in this appeal as urged by both the parties is issue No. 3 regarding fixation of standard rent to Rs. 1000/- as prayed by the plaintiffs/petitioners. Learned first appellate court in para 9 of the judgment has stated that since the premises were given on rent to the non- petitioner on 1. 6. 1964, it cannot be said that as on 1. 1. 1965 the rent of the premises under suit was less considering the rate of rent prevail ant on 1. 1. 1965. THEREfore, the petitioners were not entitled to get the standard rent determined in their suit. It has been further stated in the impugned judgment that the trial court while discussing the issue has stated that it is evident that the rents have increased in Kota since 1964 and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get the standard rent fixed under the provisions of section 6 of the Act. In para 14 of the impugned judgment, it has been mentioned that under sections 10 and 11 the provisions regarding increase of rent have been enumerated. It is further stated that if the petitioners want any increase in the rent then the petitioners shall have to prove their case in accordance with the provisions of sections 10 and 11 of the Act. Learned appellate court has opined that if any premises in the area where the suit premises is situated, was given on rent for the first time in January 1965, there could be no increase and that rent would be treated as the standard rent of such premises. On this assumption, learned first appellate court has then proceeded to consider what was the increase in the rent between 1. 6. 1964 the date on which the suit premises were given on rent to January, 1965 to show as to what extent the rent for the suit premises was low. It has been further stated in the impugned judgment that according to PW 1 himself the rent of shop in occupation of Jiyaji Shooting was increased from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 350/- p. m. shows that there was no need to fix any standard rent than the rent of Rs. 400/- p. m. for the shop in suit. Then the learned first appellate court has stated that if the shop in suit had been given on rent on 1. 01. 1965, in that case Rs. 400/- p. m. would have been the standard rent for the same and the plaintiff-petitioners have failed to prove that the rent agreed upon only six months earlier than January, 1965 was very low as if the premises in suit had been let out on rent on 1. 1. 1965, the standard rent would have been Rs. 400/- only.