MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara dated October 12, 1990 by which he has dismissed the appeal filed under Section 22, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') and confirmed the order of the learned Additional Munsif No. 1, Bhilwara, fixing provisional rent under Section 7 of the Act @ Rs. 800/- per month. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit under Section 6 of the Act with the allegation that he took suit shop on monthly rent of Rs. 400/-, he gave stamp papers after putting his signature on them for the purpose of rent note to the defendants and they got it scribed mentioning monthly rent @ Rs. 800/- instead of Rs. 400/- as agreed upon in between the parties and have filed the suit claiming rent @ Rs. 800/- per month. The monthly rent of the suit shop in the year 1955 was Rs. 22/- only and the previous tenant was paying rent @ Rs. 250/- per month. The standard rent would not exceed Rs. 137.50 per month. An application under Section 7 of the Act was also moved for fixing provisional rent. The defendant-non-petitioner seriously opposed it. After hearing the parties the learned trial Court fixed the provisional rent @ Rs. 800/- per month. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order and it was dismissed by the impugned order. There is no substance in the revision petition. Neither any illegality nor inpropriety has been committed in the exercise of their jurisdiction by the learned lower Courts. The plaintiff-petitioner admits his signature on the rent note. His case is that he put his signature on the blank stamp papers. On the contrary, it is mentioned in the impugned orders that it was contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioners that the rent note is in the handwriting of the plaintiff-petitioner himself. Be that as it may, the burden is upon the plaintiff-petitioner to prove that he never agreed to pay monthly rent @ Rs. 800/- and the rent note was not actually executed by him and he put his signature on the blank stamp papers. Apparent is real state of affairs unless contrary is proved. In the absence of convincing evidence, it will be presumed that the plaintiff-petitioner put his signature on the rent note after it was scribed.
(3.) IT is the admitted case of the plaintiff-petitioner that additions and alterations were effected by defendant-non-petitioners in the suit shop before letting it out to him. There is nothing on the record to indicate that any document has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner showing that the rent of the suit shop in the year 1955 was Rs. 22/- and the last tenant Shankarlal was paying rent @ Rs. 250/- per month.;