MOHANLAL Vs. KURKUT UTPADAK SAHAKARI SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under S.115, C.P.C. against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated July 9, 1985 by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated Dec. 23, 1981 by which he fixed the standard rent of the demised premises at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from the date of the suit. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision may be summarised thus.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit under S.6, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') in the Court of the Munsif City, Jodhpur with the allegations in short, that the shops Nos. 2, 3 and 7 were let out to the defendant on total monthly rent of Rs. 103/- the rent of each shop as on Jan. 1, 1962 was Rs. 35/- per month the cost of construction and maintenance has tremendously increased since then, the disputed shops are situated in premier locality of Jodhpur, namely, Ratanada Bazar where the rent of the shops has tremendously increased, the agreed rent of Rs. 103/- is very low in view of the prevailing rent of similar premises but in view of the provisions of the Act, the plaintiff claims enhancement to the permitted extent of Rs. 262.50p. The defendant admitted in his written statement to be in occupation and possessing of the three shops in suit on monthly rent of Rs. 103/- and the remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial court held that the agreed rent of the suit shops is quite low, their basic rent is Rs. 105/- and, accordingly, fixed standard rent at Rs. 250/- per month by its judgment dated Dec. 23, 1981. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur held that the receipts Exs. 1 to 4 produced by the plaintiff showing the rent prevailing in the years 1961 and 1962 are forged and, accordingly, dismissed the suit.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned Additional District Judge has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in holding the receipts Exs. 1 to 4 as forged despite the fact that no suggestion was put in the cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses that these receipts were so and he did not at all consider the oral evidence of the plaintiff at all from which it was well proved that the rent of each shop as on Jan. 1, 1962 was Rs. 35/- per month. He further contended that the learned Additional District Judge totally ignored the provisions of sub-sec.(3) of S.6 of the Act under which he was required to take into consideration the prevailing rent or standard rent for similar premises in the same locality, various amenities attached to the suit shops, cost of construction maintenance and repairs thereof on which the evidence was duly given for determining the standard rent.