PRASANNA KUMAR Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed under Section 22, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act') against the order of the District Judge, Pali dated December 18, 1987, determining the provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 341/- under sec. 7 of the Act w. e. f- March 30, 1987 and determening the amount of rent at the rate of Rs. 481/- for sixty seven months and at the rate of Rs. 341/-for eight month and interest total Rs. 40494. 69p and further directing to pay the said amount within fifteen days and to further pay monthly rent @ Rs. 341/ -. The facts of the case giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS Prasanna Kumar & Sunil Kumar filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendants with the allegations, in short that they are in occupation and possession of the disputed premises as tenants on monthly rent of Rs. 481/- and they have not paid rent since Kartik Sudi 1 Samvat 2038 The defendants filed their written-statement resisting the suit and claiming fixation of standard rent under Sec. 6 of the Act @ Rs 90/-ner month The parties filed their affidavits in support of their contentions. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court held that the premises was let out at the rate of Rs. 341/- after 1965 and, accordingly fixed the provisional rent at this rate under Sec 7 of the Ac and determined the amount of rent and interest under Sec. 13 (3) of the Act.

(3.) THERE is also no force in the defendant's appeal. The defendants have utterly failed to establish even prima facie that the suit premises was let out at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month in the year 1962. In the absence of any material, standard" rent could not be fixed at the rate of Rs 90/- per mouth. The defendants alleged that the premises was let out to M/s. Padam Chand & Company at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month in the year 1965 and thereafter. The plaintiffs' case is that the entire suit premises was not let out to M/s. Padam Chand & Company at the rate of Rs. 150/: per month. The learned trial court has properly discussed the affidavits of the defendant Mohanlal and of his Munim Pukhraj and also of the plaintiff's father Deep Chand. In the absence of any material on record, it cannot be said that the trial court seriously erred in preferring the affidavit of the plaintiff-Deep Chand than that of the defendant Mohan Lal and his witness- Pukh Raj. This determination of standard rent is provisional. It is open to both the parties to adduce evidence during trial. Thus there is no force in both the appeals.