- (1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff � landlord Smt. Suraj Devi w/o Shri Gopal Acharya aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial court of Additional District Judge No.1, Bikaner decreeing the Civil Suit No.188/1999 � Smt. Suraj Devi w/o Shri Gopal Acharya resident of Rani Bazar, Bikaner vs. Rameshwar Lal s/o Gordhan Lal Tanwar, Proprietor of M/s. Gordhan Lal Tanwar, Acharya Market, Rani Bazar, Bikaner under Section 6 for fixation of standard rent in respect of the suit shop situated at Rani Bazar, Bikaner, which was let out to the defendant � tenant in the year 1972 for the monthly rent of Rs.56/- per month only. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff � appellant on 22.12.1999.
(2.) THE plaintiff � appellant adduced an evidence Ex.1 � a Valuation Report of the Chartered Engineer PW-2 Mukesh Kumar Dhingra, who valued the said shop of 167 sq.ft. At Rs.9,18,806/- and taking 9% of the same as annual rent of Rs.82,693/- at the monthly rent of Rs.6,891/- per month. THE said Chartered Engineer � Mukesh Kumar Dhingra was already examined by the trial court as PW-2 on 10.08.2004. He admitted in his statement that Ex.1 � the Valuation Report, the name of the owner was inadvertently shown as that of the Gordhan Lal Tanwar, who is father of the defendant � tenant Rameshwar Lal instead of plaintiff � landlord and owner of the suit property Smt. Suraj Devi w/o Shri Gopal Acharya. He, however, submitted that he visited the suit shop and taking the necessary measurements, has valued the said property at the aforesaid figure. The learned trial court, ignoring the evidence of PW-2 Mukesh Kumar Dhingra and Ex.1 � Valuation Report, while also discussing the evidence of the defendant tenant Rameshwar Lal himself as DW-1 that the adjacent shop in the same vicinity was given to one Mool Chand for Rs.1,000/- per month only in the year preceding, the learned trial court increased the standard rent from Rs.1,00/- to Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 22.12.1999. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff � appellant has preferred the present first appeal before this Court under Section 96 CPC. Learned counsel for the appellant � plaintiff, Mr. Pranjal Vyas appearing for Dr. Sachin Acharya submitted that the cogent evidence in the form of Ex.1 � Valuation Report, which was duly proved by the Chartered Engineer PW-2 Mukesh Kumar Dhingra, has not been fully appreciated and rather ignored by the learned trial court and merely on the basis of the oral statement of defendant Rameshwar Lal himself, that the one shop in the same vicinity, nearby to the suit shop was let out to one Mool Chand only for Rs.1,000/- per month in the preceding year, the trial court has erred in fixing the standard rent under Section 6 of the Act at Rs.1,000/- per month only. He, therefore, prayed that the present first appeal of plaintiff � landlord deserves to be allowed and the standard rent should be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the defendant � tenant Rameshwar Lal, initially raised an objection that in view of para 23 of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gyan Chand vs. Kunjbeharilal and others reported in 1997 (3) SCC � 317, the present first appeal under Section 96 CPC is not maintainable and a civil miscellaneous appeal only would be maintainable, as the present impugned order of learned Additional District Judge, does not amount to a decree. He submitted that the court below has rightly relied upon the evidence of DW -1 Rameshwar Lal and fixed the standard rent rather highly at Rs.1000/- per month. He submitted that on the contrary that the defendant � tenant has filed a cross � appeal against the very same order of the learned trial court being SBCMA No.88/2006 Rameshwar Lal vs. Smt. Suraj Devi, which is pending this Court, seeking reduction of the standard rent fixed at Rs.1,000/- per month. I have heard learned counsels at some length and perused the record and judgment cited at the bar. Section 22 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 is reproduced below: Section 22. - APPEAL and REVISION - (1) From every decree or order passed by a Court under this Act, an appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from original decrees and orders passed by such former Court. (2) No second appeal shall lie from any such decree or order ; Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the powers of the High Court for Rajasthan in revision. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Magistrate may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, appeal there from to the District Magistrate or such authority as the State Government may from time to time appoint in that behalf. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gyan Chand vs. Kunjbeharilal and others (supra), held as under: "23. Section 22(1) refers to every decree or order passed by a court under this Act. The decree or order passed under this Act must, thereore, have reference to those passed under Sections 6, 7, 11, 19A and 19C. Sub-section (2) provides that no second appeal shall lie from any such decree or order. Such decrees or orders are, therefore, again referable to those passed under the above mentioned sections under the Act. While a second appeal is barred in case of those decrees and orders under the Act the High Court's power of revision is not barred. Sub- section (3) of Section 12 provides for appeals from an order of a Magistrate to the District Magistrate or such authority as may be appointed by the Government. As noticed earlier certain orders are passed by the Magistrate under Section 12(3), Section 17 and Section 19. Section 22(3) makes provision of appeal against such orders passed under Section 12(3), Section 17 and Section 19. 24. It is, therefore, clear that the Act provides for the institution of actions in two different forums and also makes provision for appeals and revisions against orders and decrees passed under the Act. There is no provision in the Act for institution of suits for eviction which will, therefore, lie in the ordinary courts of competent jurisdiction. Appeals, also revisions, where competent, will lie against decrees in eviction suits in the usual hierarchy of courts. 25. It is manifest from a perusal of the scheme of the Act that appeals or applications for revision under Section 13 (A)(c) relate only to decrees in suits for eviction based on the ground of non- payment of rent. Such appeals or applications for revision under Section 13 (A)(c) are not contemplated under Section 22 of the Act. As shown above, decrees or orders passed by the court under the Act against which appeals and revisions are provided in Section 22 do not take in decrees or orders passed in a suit for eviction. Usual rights of appeal and revision will be available in the latter class of suits. To hold otherwise will be to deny a right of second appeal to a litigant, be he a landlord or a tenant, against a decree in an eviction suit which is clearly not the intention of the legislature. Second appeal is only barred in case of decrees or orders passed under the Act to which a copious reference has been made hereinabove with reference to the various provisions of the Act. 26. With regard to execution proceedings, it would appear that these are outside the scheme of clauses (a) to (c) of Section 13A butit is unnecessary to express any firm opinion on that point since it does not arise in this appeal. 27. We are of the opinion that the appellant cannot take advantage of Section 13A in this appeal by special leave. His applications under Section 13A stand dismissed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs." 8. It is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the decree or order passed by a court under this Act (Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950) under Sections 6, 7, 11, 19A and 19C. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 clearly provides that no second appeal shall lie from any such decree or order. Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act of 1950, clearly provides that from every decree or order passed by a court under this Act, an appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the original decrees and orders passed by such former court. Section 96 CPC under which the present first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, clearly stipulates that an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court. Against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, obviously an appeal under Section 96 CPC lies to this Court and since the judgment or order passed under Section 6 of the Act for fixing of standard rent, is treated as decree in view of Section 22(1) of the Act and as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gyan Chand vs. Kunjbeharilal and others (supra) in para 23 quoted above, there is no force in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant � tenant and the present first appeal has rightly been filed and is maintainable before this Court. The objection is accordingly over-ruled.
(3.) ON merits, this Court finds that the court below has altogether ignored the Valuation Report Ex.1, which was duly proved by the PW-2 Mukesh Kumar Dhingra, a Chartered Engineer himself. The inadvertent mention of the name of Gordhan Lal Tanwar, father of the defendant � tenant Rameshwar Lal in the said Valuation Report as owner and also the fact that the plaintiff � owner Smt. Suraj Devi, did not meet personally the said Chartered Engineer for obtaining the said Valuation Report, are hardly any relevant factors to ignore the Valuation Report of the Chartered Engineer, who appeared before the Court as PW-2 and proved the said Valuation Report by proving his signatures thereon and explaining the aforesaid discrepancy. As against this, the oral evidence of interested witness defendant � tenant Rameshwar Lal himself, who referred to one tenancy created in favour of Mool Chand for Rs.1,000/- per month for a shop in near vicinity, without any documentary evidence has been made the basis for fixing the standard rent @ Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 22.12.1999. It has to be remembered that the tenancy in question was in the year 1972 @ Rs.56/- per month, which was gradually increased to Rs.100/- per month only and, therefore, the plaintiff � appellant filed the suit in the year 1999 seeking suitable increase by fixing of standard rent under Section 6 of the Act. This Court in the case of Ratna Ram vs. Hans Raj (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.142/2012) decided on 6th September, 2012 in para 8 held as under : "The fixation of standard rent by the learned Appellate Court below cannot be said to be bereft of evidence in the present case. The learned appellate court below in para 35 to 40 of the impugned judgment and decree from page 14 to 18 has not only discussed the evidence brought before the learned trial Court by both the parties, but has also discussed the rent paid by the tenants of nearby shops. The tenant of a nearby liquor shop was paying rent of Rs.5,000/- per month. D.W.2 Om Prakash who is also tenant in the same market of the same landlord, was directed to pay Rs.966/- per month by the learned trial Court. The learned Appellate Court has relied upon the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan and anr. V/s Bhanwari Devi and anr. reported in 2006(2) RLW 1541, in which on the basis of increase in price index itself, this Court held that price index gets double normally in every 8 years, therefore, the rent is required to be increased by adopting the same mode of making the rent double after eight years." The Valuation Report of the Chartered Engineer could not have been ignored, which was an Expert's opinion duly proved by him. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present first appeal deserves to be allowed and the standard rent @ Rs.1,000/- fixed w.e.f. 22.12.1999 is enhanced to Rs.3,000/- from 22.12.1999 till today and @ Rs.6,000/- per month from today onwards. The plaintiff � landlord shall be further entitled to increase of the rent every year in accordance with the provisions of New Rent Control Act, 2001. The arrears of rent after adjustment of the amounts already deposited by the defendant � tenant, may be paid to the plaintiff � landlord within three months from today. ;