Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against a decision of the Small Cause Court Judge, Bikaner.
(2.) THE respondent sued the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 90/- as rent for 15 months at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month. THE defendant raised several pleas, one of which was that he was a tenant of the house since 1940, that the original rent was Rs. 1/8/- a month, which was subsequently raised to Rs. 3/- per month in 1943, that he agreed to increase the rent to Rs. 6/-per month on pressure by the landlord, and that under the provisions of the Bikaner Rent Restriction Order, 1942, the landlord was not entitled to recover more than Rs. 3/12/- per month. THE learned Judge, Small Cause Court, was of opinion that the defendant failed to prove occupation as a tenant prior to 1943, and that, therefore, the provisions of the Rent Restriction Order were not applicable. In this petition it was argued that under section 3 of the said Rent Restriction Order, the landlord could not increase the rent by more than 25% of the average monthly rent he received for the house during the 12 months ending 30th April, 1942, and that assuming that the rent in 1942 was the same as in 1943, the plaintiff could not increase the rent by more than 25% as the plaintiff himself admitted that when the defendant came to occupy in September, I943, the rent was originally fixed at Rs. 3/-per month, which was subsequently raised by mutual agreement to Rs. 6/ -. Looking to the scheme of the Rent Restriction Order, and the language used in section 3, it appears to me that the benefit was only to be given to existing tenants who had been in occupation on the date of commencement of the Notification. The language used in section 3 is that the landlord shall not increase the rent by more than 25%, and in section 4, the landlord was given authority to raise the rent in case some addition or improvement had been made in it. It did not apply to tenants who came to occupy after the enforcement of the Order. The lower Court has found that the defendant came to occupy the building as a tenant in September, 1943, and according to the written statement while the rent at the time of occupation was Rs, 3/-, he had of his own accord, voluntarily agreed to pay Rs. 6/- after a few months. According to the defendant, he had been paying this rent of Rs. 6/- a month from 1943 to 1948 for a period of about 5 years. The other pleas taken by the defendant that he had paid the rent, and nothing was due, and that the landlord wanted to eject him unless he paid Rs. 25/- per month have been found to be false. In my opinion the Rent Restriction Order, 1942, is of no assistance to him, and the suit was rightly decreed, and this revision fails and is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner wants a certificate for appeal in this case. The certificate cannot be granted as this is a revision and not a second appeal. .;