JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THESE are connected revision applications by the tenant and the landlords respectively against an appellate order of the learned District Judge Jaipur City fixing the rent of the premises in dispute at Rs. 30/- per month under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) THE suit was instituted by the tenant on two grounds. THE first ground was that part of the leased premises were not given into his possession by the landlords on a false pretext and the second ground was that the agreed rent was excessive taking into consideration the rent of similar accomodation in the locality. During the course of evidence the tenant gave up the first ground and admitted that he was in possession of all the property leased to him. He did not produce any evidence to show what the rent of similar premises in the locality was. THE trial court decreed the suit on the ground that the tenant had failed to prove that the rent was excessive. Radha Raman the tenant was formerly the Managing Director of the Kamla Oil and Dal Mills. The Mills had taken on the lease from the landlords a Nohra at Rs. 30/ -. per month under rent-note Ex. 1 on 2. 3. 47. The Mills did not pay rent regularly and the evidence on record shows that in consideration of its vacating the premises the landlords accepted the arrears of rent at Rs. 25/- per month from the Mills. The premises were vacated in December 1947. Radha Raman then carried on negotiations with the landlords for taking the premises on lease for his personal use for installing a flour mill. He executed rent-note Ex. A. 1 on 15. 6. 48. The Mills had let out a portion of the Nohra to Chhittar and Bajrang. That portion was not included in the new lease. That portion was subsequently reconstructed and was let out to one Ramlal who has appeared as a witness of Radha Raman. The tenant based his case in evidence solely on the allegation that the premises let out to the Mills and to him were the same with this difference that whereas the Mills had the portion occupied by Bajrang and Chhittar also he did not have it. His contention was that as rent was accepted from the mills for the premises at Rs. 25/- and as the portion occupied by Bajrang and Chhittar had since been let out at Rs. 10/- per month the rent of his premises should be fixed at Rs. 15/- per month. The case of the landlords on this point was that after the premises were vacated by the Mills two rooms which were lying incomplete were completed, the old garage was made bigger and a part of the Chowk and one room (Sal) which were not with the Mills were given to Radha Raman. Apart from this electricity was installed. The trial court which recorded evidence and made a local inspection came to the finding that the allegation of the landlords in this behalf was correct. The appellate court took a totally erroneous view of the case. It was of the opinion that the landlords could not let out premises at an enhanced rent to a new tenant without serving a notice in writing upon him as required by sec. 11 of the Act. Such a notice is only necessary when the landlord wishes to enhance the rent during the continuance of the same tenant. \ The appellate court also did not apply its mind properly to the evidence on record and was under the erroneous impression that the only dispute between the parties related to the question as to whether the Sal was with the Mills or not. Even assuming that the finding of the appellate court that the Sal was with the Mills also is correct, apart from this Sal the allegation of the landlords is that two rooms which were lying incomplete were completed after the Mills had vacated the premises and that the garage was made bigger and electricity was installed. About this the appellate court did not record any finding. But in my opinion the tenant is not entitled to get the agreed rent reduced under sec. 6 of the Act unless one of the following two circumstances exist: - (i) that the agreed rent exceeds the basic rent beyond the limit laid down in sec. 6 (2 ). (ii) that the agreed rent is in excess of the rent of similar premises in the same loca lity. In the present case it was neither alleged nor proved what the basic rent was. It was not alleged that the premises were not let out on 1. 1. 43. Nor was it alleged that they were first let out after 1. 1. 46 to the Mills. The rent at which the premises were let out to the Mills cannot therefore be considered to be the basic rent of the premises. The learned counsel for the tenant contended that in the absence of evidence to the contrary it should be presumed that the premises were let out for the first time to the Mills. No such presumption can be drawn. As has already been pointed out above, the tenant failed to produce any evidence to show that the agreed rent is in excess of the rent of similar premises in the same locality. There is thus absence of either of the above two circumstances in the present case and the tenant is not entitled to a reduction in the rent. The mere fact that the same premises were earlier let out at a lesser rate of rent does not entitle the tenant to claim a reduction in the rate of rent under sec. 6 of the Act. He must prove the existence of one of the two above circumstances before he becomes entitled to it. I accordingly hold that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to reduce the agreed rent. I therefore allow the revision application filed by the landlord and dismiss the suit filed by the tenant. The revision application filed by the tenant is also dismissed. The landlords are entitled to recover the costs throughout from the tenant. . ;