- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State / PWD Department being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2003 in a money recovery suit No.132/2000 � Shiv Dayal s/o Shanker Lal Purohit vs. State of Rajasthan through Collector, Bhilwara and another filed by the plaintiff � landlord Shiv Dayal Purohit, by which the learned trial court of District Judge, Bhilwara has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.2,54,000/- along with 6% interest of Rs.2,28,500/-.
(2.) THE matter pertains to arrears of recovery of rent in respect of a building of the plaintiff � landlord given on rent to PWD Department for office of the Executive Engineer of the PWD Department in Bhilwara on 01.10.1989 at the rent of Rs.3,950/- per month. It is stated at bar that the vacant possession of the suit premises in question has been handed over back to the plaintiff � landlord on 19.06.2000. The issue decided in favour of the plaintiff � landlord by the learned trial court is that though the initial rent of said premises was only Rs.3,950/- per month, the revision of rent due after five years w.e.f. 01.10.1994 was bound to be done as per the relevant General Financial and Account Rules and according to which, the valuation done by the competent Engineer of the PWD Department itself was produced in evidence by the plaintiff � landlord and as per the said valuation report (Ex.12), the monthly rent came to Rs.11,802/- per month and accordingly the learned trial court has decreed the suit for difference of arrears of rent for the said period 01.10.1994 till 19.06.2000 on the basis of the said valuation report. Learned counsel for the defendant � appellant � State / PWD Department, Mr. Mukul Singhvi submitted that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while admitting the present appeal on 01.09.2003 has passed the following interim order, according to which the monthly rent of Rs.5958/- only was required to be determined since the land rate in the valuation report Ex.12 treated the land in question as commercial, whereas it ought to have been taken as residential and accordingly the total valuation of the suit property in question was bound to go down and this Court relying upon the Document C-12/17 � a letter of Executive Engineer, PWD Division II, Bhilwara to the Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle, Bhilwara on 04.10.1999, has admitted the present appeal on 01.09.2003 noticing the monthly rent of Rs.5958/- only payable for the said suit premises. "Perused the record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the assessment of rent said to have been made by PWD, and relied upon by the plaintiff is on the basis of the commercial use of the premises, while, the premises are residential accommodation, and therefore, if the assessment was to be made on residential basis, the rent came to Rs.5,958/- per month only as appears from the document available on record at page C-12/17. Admit. Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application. In the meanwhile, if the appellants deposit 50% of the decreetal amount in the trial Court, within a period of eight weeks, the execution of the impugned decree shall remain stayed. However, the amount deposited by the appellant shall not be disbursed to the plaintiff without express order of this Court." Learned counsel Mr. Mukul Singhvi also argued that the valuation report Ex.12 per se does not amount to agreement between the parties for payment of said increased rent of Rs.11,802/- per month and it is merely an opinion given by the Engineer of the PWD Department about valuation of the property, which also prima facie was incorrect, since the commercial rate of land in question was taken in the said valuation report, contrary to the contents of the document the letter dated 04.10.1999 and the monthly rent could not be, therefore, Rs.11,802/- per month and it could be maximum at Rs.5958/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.1994. He further submitted that the State / PWD Department � the tenant had already increased the rent by 20% under Ex.3 letter dated 06.10.1995 by which the increased rent Rs.4740/- per month with 20% increase, was effective w.e.f. 01.10.1994 was paid till 19.06.2000 when the vacant possession of the suit premises was handed over back to the landlord. Learned counsel for the State / PWD Department, Mr. Mukul Singhvi, therefore, argued that merely on the basis of the valuation report, the increased rent of Rs.11,802/- per month could not be decreed by the learned trial court. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent landlord � plaintiff urged that the said Document C-12/17 letter dated 04.10.1999 referred in the interim order was neither exhibited nor proved by any witness on behalf of the defendant � PWD Department before the learned trial court and, therefore, the valuation of the property in question done by the Engineer of the PWD Department itself was binding on the defendant � PWD Department and, therefore, the learned court below has not erred in decreeing the suit for arrears of the rent of the property in question. I have heard learned counsels and perused the judgment under appeal and record of the case.
(3.) THIS Court is of the view that the objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant � appellant, PWD Department, appears to be correct that the said Document C-12/17 � the letter dated 04.10.1999 does not appear to be exhibited on record and proved in accordance with law before the learned trial court, but there is a series of documents by way of correspondence between the two authorities of Department; which have been placed on record before the trial court and, therefore, it appears that the valuation report, as such, is not the sole evidence, which could be relied upon, in the absence of any contrary or specified agreement adopting such report as the basis for decreeing the arrears of rent on the basis of said Valuation Report Ex. 12 alone. The tenancy is an agreement between the two parties and unless the rent is specifically agreed, the same could not have been increased on the basis of the valuation report alone, which was at best an evidence in support of the plaintiff's case. In the absence of any proper rebuttal by the defendant / Department, the suit has been decreed to the extent of arrears of rent treating the said amount of Rs.11,802/- as monthly payable rent. The matter is, therefore, required to be remanded back to the learned trial court. Therefore, the present appeal of State / PWD Department is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.01.2003 is set aside and the suit No.132/2000 � Shiv Dayal s/o Shanker Lal Purohit vs. State of Rajasthan through Collector, Bhilwara and another is restored for fresh trial. The appellants � defendant � State /PWD Department is permitted to lead fresh evidence in support of its defence with a right of rebuttal by the plaintiff. The amount already deposited by the defendant � State against the impugned decree dated 25.01.2003, which is being now set aside, shall not be disbursed to the plaintiff � landlord and shall abide by the fresh decision of the trial court upon remand. No order as to costs.;