GIDUMAL Vs. RAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the landlord -defendant against the judgment and decree dated August 26, 1976 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur by which he reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif City, Jodhpur on December 19, 1973 in a suit for fixation of standard rent.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the tenant and the defendant is the landlord. The case of the plaintiff was that he is tenant of a shop situate in the main market Sardarpura Road No. 1st B, Jodhpur which was constructed by Bhikamchand Khatri in 1943 and was let by him to one Sindhi Vaidraj (Vishanddas Sindhi). Bhikamchand Khatri sold his house, including the shop, to one Sukhlal and his sons and who let it out to the plaintiff on March 1, 1954 on monthly rent of Rs. 10/ - Rs. 2.00 p m as electric charges. Sukhlal and his sons sold the house including the shop in suit to the petitioner in June 1960 and thus, the plaintiff became his tenant. It is said by the plaintiff that after the purchase, the defendant increased the rent from time to time and with effect from November 1, 1968, he has been paying the rent @ Rs. 20/ - per month which continued till the suit was instituted that is March 29, 1971. In para 16 of the plaint, it was stated that the basic rent of the shop in question was Rs. 8.00 per month and, therefore, the recovery of rent by the plaintiff @ Rs. 20/ - per month is against law. He, therefore, prayed that standard rent of the shop may be fixed at Rs. 8 00 per month or at such rate as the court may deem fit. The defendant -landlord contested the suit on various grounds. According to him, the rent which the plaintiff has been paying @ Rs. 20/ - per month is reasonable in as much as the prevailing rent of a like shop in the vicinity is rot less than Rs. 100/ -. The trial court framed three issues which, when translated into English, read as under: 1. What is the basic rent of the shop in suit ? 2. What is the standard rent of the shop in suit ?

(3.) IT may be stated that in support of the plaint, the plaintiff examined PW 1 Sukhlal, PW 2 Champalal, PW 3 Bhikamchand Khatri and himself as PW4 and documents Ex.1 to Ex 3 were got proved. The defendant had not lead any evidence in rebuttal. The learned Munsif, on an appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the first tenant of the shop in suit was Vishandass Sindhi and that the rent was Rs. 7/ -(sic) -8/ - per month and therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 he fixed the standard rent two and a half times the basic rent i.e. Rs. 20/ - per month.