- (1.) THIS is plaintiffs first appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 30. 4. 1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, for fixation of standard rent.
(2.) PLAINTIFF-appellants filed a suit u/s 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rent Control Act'), with the allegation that the appellant No. 1 took on rent the suit premises a house constructed on Plot No. B-94a, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur, on an agreed rent of Rs. 1250/- per month, for residence, w. e. f. 1. 12. 1972. Thereafter, rent was increased from 13. 12. 1974 to Rs. 1400/ -. The plaintiff No. 1 further mentioned in the plaint that this house was constructed after 1965 and was given on rent for the first time, to M/s. Hindustan Salts Limited, at the rate of Rs. 850/- per month. Therefore, it's basic rent is Rs. 850/- per month and hence, standard rent could also not be more than Rs. 850/- per month. The plaintiff requested the defendants to decrease the rent but they avoided and therefore, the plaintiffs prayed that a sum of Rs. 850/- per month may be fixed as the standard rent for the suit premises. In the written statement, the defendants have admitted that the suit house was given on rent to Hindustan Salts Limited at the rate of Rs. 850/- per month from 13. 12. 1969 to 30. 11. 1972. The plaintiffs, before taking the suit premises on rent, had asked the defendants to construct an underground and over head tank and get the booster pump and motor fitted and also some wooden work to be done which cost him nearly Rs. 1000/ -. Therefore, the plaintiffs agreed to take the suit property on a rent of Rs. 1250/- per month and since the defendants had made additions and alterations and had increased the facilities and amenities as also made improvement, the standard rent could not be the same as the basic rent. The defendants further submitted that the suit was filed because the defendants terminated the tenancy of the plaintiffs and had asked them to vacate the suit premises by 30. 4. 1967, therefore, the present suit was filed on the last date of the tenancy. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- ************** The plaintiff No. I himself examined as PW-1 in support of his allegations made in the plaint. In his statement, he admitted that when he came to know that there is some water problem, he had asked the defendants and they had agreed to get underground tank and over head tank constructed and also provide booster with motor. He of course denied that wood panelling was done by the defendants but he asserted that it was got done by him and invested a sum of Rs. 20,000/ -. He admitted that the accomodation in the adjoining house belonging to Shri Yatindra Singh, which was on rent, is almost the same, except he has got a small lawn in front. He did not know that it's rent was Rs. 1400/- per month. Similarly, he denied having any knowledge that Raghu Sinha was occupying a similar house nearby at the rate of Rs. 1500/- or that the house of Mohan Mukherjee was on a rent of Rs. 1500/- per month. PW-2 Ramesh Chand Dixit was also examined who had supervised the wood panelling work got done by the plaintiff in the suit house. The defendants examined Satya Prakash as DW-1 who also supported his assertions in the written statement and also proved that the adjoining houses were let out between Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2,000/ -. The defendants also got examined Yatindra Singh as DW-2 who has proved that his house adjoining the suit house was on rent for a sum of Rs. 1600/ -. The defendants also got examined DW-3 Shyam Singh Goyal, Proprietor of Jaipur Auction House who deals in properties. He proved that the plaintiffs had agreed to pay Rs. 1250/- as rent which is the reasonable rent DW-4 Prem Khanna and DW-5 Bhanwar Lal have been Examined to prove the expenses incurred by the defendants.
(3.) LEARNED trial court on the basis of the evidence, adduced by the parties, held that the defendants had been able to prove only that they spent Rs. 4500/-on the suit property for additions and alterations and that the agreed rent of Rs. 1400/- is reasonable and not excessive and therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The Plaintiffs have filed the present appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree. At the very outset, it may be noted that the suit premises have been vacated by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellants has very vehemently submitted that since the suit properties were constructed after 1965 and was given on rent, for the first time, at the rate of Rs. 850/- so, that was the basic rent and therefore, it should also be the standard rent of the suit premises and in this connection has placed reliance on Shambhu Ram V. Kanhya Lal (1), Central Bank of India V. Govind Narain (2) and Jayanti Lal Keshavlal Patel V. Devshi Chakubhai (3 ). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the defendants had made certain additions and alterations and increased the facilities and amenities, the basic rent could not be the standard rent of the suit premises. Moreover, the suit was not filed bona-fide. It was filed only after the plaintiffs, tenancy had been terminated and they were asked to vacate the premises by 30. 4. 1977, that the suit was filed on the last date of the tenancy. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Jagdish Prasad V. Kapoor Chand (4) wherein the contention that mere cliam by the landlord or the tenant that rent of a particular premises is low or excessive, invest the court with jurisdiction based on literal meaning of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 6, was not accepted. ;