- (1.) THE appellant � plaintiff � landlord has filed the present first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Udaipur dtd.19.11.1998 passed in Civil Original Suit No.180/1995 � Smt. Pushpa Sharma V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. seeking enhancement of the rent in question as per government Notification dtd.2.1.1990, which has been quoted by the learned court below in its judgment under appeal. The said notification reads as under: The existing note added as item 2 in column 23 of serial No.4 of Appendix-VIII of the said rules vide this Department order No.F.5(2)FD/RRA&A/78 dated 22.7.1985 (Circular No.29/85) shall be substituted by the following:- Note 2(i) � In the agreement for tenancy in respect of lands and buildings taken on hire by the State Government in future, the initial rent may be fixed as assessed by P.W.D. As per existing rules. However, after every period of five years, the lease would be extendable at the option of the State Government (a) either on increase of rent of the building by 20%; or (b) as per latest revised assessment of P.W.D. whichever is less. The Government would be competent to terminate the tenancy earlier than the prescribed period/extended period, as the case may be, by givin 3 months previous notice. (ii) In respect of lands or buildings already on hire with the State Govt., the amount of the rent may be increased by 20%, if the land or building is on hire with the Govt. Continuously for a period of 5 years or more as on 1.4.1990. In case the land and building was taken on hire, on a date after 1.4.1985, than the rent may be increased as above on 1st April following the completion of five years".
(2.) THE premises in question is a residential house situated at Bhupalpura, Udaipur was let out to the State Government, Department of Medical and Health on 1.6.1984 at the monthly rent of Rs.729/-. The rent was enhanced by the mutual agreement between the parties on 29.6.1985 to Rs.829/-. The plaintiff claimed enhancement of rent at the rate of 20% after expiry of 5 years from 1.4.1990 in terms of aforesaid notification dtd.2.1.1990. The vacant possession of premises in question has been handed over back to the landlord on 1.3.1998 and therefore, the dispute in the present case is limited to the determination of enhanced rent in terms of aforesaid notification for the period before 1.4.1990 to 1.3.1998 only. The learned court below while dealing with the said notification has found in para 7 of the impugned judgment dtd.19.11.1998 that it is at the option of the State Government whether to enhance the rent or not. This reasoning given by the learned court below is apparently contrary to the aforesaid statutory notification. The said notification lays down the guidelines for determination of rent if the option is exercised by the lessee or the State Government to extend the lease after 5 years and unless the latest revised assessment of rent as per PWD rates is made, the increase in the rent is to be adopted at 20% whichever is less of these two assessments, the rent has to be adopted for next five years. These guidelines are undoubtedly binding on the State Government itself and therefore, learned Court below has fallen into apparent error while holding that it is at the option of the State Government whether to enhance the rent or not. The option in question is whether to extend the lease or not, but once it is so exercised and lease is renewed for next five years, option about increasing the rent is no more available to the Department of State Government. Such enhancement has to be done as per the guidelines laid down in the said notification and lesser of two assessments (i) increase of rent by 20% or (ii) as per latest revised assessment of PWD has to be adopted. The impugned judgment of the learned court below therefore, cannot be sustained. The present first appeal of the landlord is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Dist. Judge, Udaipur dtd.19.11.1998 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Dist. Judge, Udaipur to determine the rent in terms of said guidelines laid down by the State Government for the period from 1.4.1992 to 1.3.1998 and pass the money decree to that extent may be passed against the defendant - Department of Medical and Health of State Government. No order as to costs.;